The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-15 00:00:00

* them through, as

:era will lay a rate to
hen adjourned.

LIVERPOOL CH
COMMER Ci

rirE monthly meeting of the council v. ---
Lomas Bunch, Esq., Vice-president, in the chair
After the formal prOceedinf,. a rarnrnmayaia

s held rest

cates of survey

om the committee 'on the subject of certifi-
* which was adopted. A memorial
e to the short supply of Peruvian
1 by the special committee, and

to Gov

geed to,
Among

tile communications were letters from Mr. James
Wilson, M.P., Secretary to the Treasury, presenting to the
Chamber a handsomely-bound volume. containing the
Customs' Consolidation and Tiiriff Acts, for which the
best thanks of the council were voted. From the Singapore
Chamber of Commerce, on the differential duty on wild
is and cultivated nutmegs : referred to L.
mittee. From the Royal Commissioners

e customs
on the

bankruptcy
law of part

from the Re
: referred to

LIVERPOOL COUNTY
YESTERDAY.

COURT.-

(Before JOSEPH PoLLocK, Esq., the Judge.)

ONE hundred plaints were heard yesterday, but: scarcelj
y of the cases were possessed of public interest
--HEWITT V.

ALLEGED PALS
WAINNVEIGII,T.--This was an action by Mr. HE

'CATION OF AC

Hewitt

to recover a sum of £3 135:10d., fc

Wainwright, who appeared for the

an account book, to show that the greater part of the
money had been already paid. His Honour, on closely
examining the books, said that he found that there were
two places in the pounds column where the figures had
been scratched out, and a£l inserted. On this he gave
immediate judgment for the plaintiff, and said he was not
quite satisfied that he should not direct Mrs. Wainwright
into custody, as there had been apparent forgery. Prompt
payment was ordered.

NEGLECT TO GIVE CIIANGE.—THOMPSON v. HALL.—
The plaintiff, Captain Thompson, is a master mariner of
this port; Mr. Hall, the defendant, a butcher at North
Shields, and. the action was brought to recover £5 and
costs, under the following transaction :—The plaintiff had
a chronometer to dispose of, and the defendant wished to
purchase one for his brother, who is a master mariner.
They met together at Mr. Daniell's shop, when £27 was
asked. Defendant agreed to give that amount. He paid

'him £3, and taking the other two
sovereiins-with him wrapped up in the notes. On getting
to the George Hotel, he recollected that the sixth note
'had not been paid over, and he then went, accompanied.
by detective officer Murphy, in search of the defendant,
whom they found at Harrison's public-house, opposite the
Custom House, and who said that he had paid the full
amount, although he did not, as requested, count over
the money that he had in his pockets, alleging that he
was ignorant of what sum he had on setting out in the
morning. The case was undefended, and a verdict was
given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
A FRENCH PIWT.OGRAPIIER.—A young Frenchman,
named Ernest Farrington de Bouglinval, summoned Mr.
Parsons, photographic artist, of Bold-street, for £3, being
a month's wages for service. He also claimed for some
portraits and music, his property, which Mr. Parsons re-
tained ; but, he being a minor, this portion of his claim
could not be entertained. It appeared that, in April last,
the defendant was in want of an assistant, when the
plaintiff, then in Paris, was engaged to him by his father.
He was to be boarded in Mr. Parsons' house, and to be
paid from 15s. to 305., according to the talent which he
might exhibit. He entered on the service on the Ist
of April, and on the Ist of May was paid £3, being at the
rate of 15s. a week. On the 20th of May the plaintiff
returned home at ten o'clock at night, when he found that
his master had locked the door on him. The plaintiff, in
examination, stated that the likenesses he took had been
found fault with, but that the defendant's apparatus
was imperfect. On cross-examination by Mr. Hime, who
appeared for the defendant, he stated that he had
gone, when with Mr. Parsons, under a wrong name.
Questions were then put, with a view to show that after
the month had expired a fresh engagement was made with
him; by which he was to be paid only for the pictures that
—By mutual consent, after the case had DrO•

knother

he coloured.

ceeded a certain length, it was left to the arbitration of the

French consul

A LANDLORD'S LxAnurry.--Mr. Rawle, of Kensing-
ton-terrace, Upper Parliament-street summoned Mr.
Stephen Fletcher, his landlord, for £1 18s. 3d., the amount
of bills paid for repairing gas pipes, opening the pipe of
the water-closet, &e. Mr. Rawle stated that on the 22nd
of December last •he became a tenant of Mr. Fletcher.
The house was £46 a-year rent, and he was told, on taking
it, that it was in perfect order, and that gas and
water were laid in every room. He found, however,
that the gas pipes were not connected with the main
pipe, and that they also leaked, so much as to
require extensive repairs. He sent for workmen to the
office of the Gas Company, and had been charged for their
services £1 Bs. The defendant on complaint afterwards
sent one of his own workmen to open out the pipe of the
water closet, which was filled with shavings, but for that
the man charged him (the plaintiff) 10s. As the evidence
was defective in some material particulars, the case was
postponed.
CLAIM AGAINST AN AucTioNEEn,—AdamDoyle, cotton

waste dealer, summoned Mr. Joseph Parker, inctioneer,
for £2105., the value of an iron chain which he alleged
that he had bought, but which had not been delivered. A
sale, it appeared, took place in December last, at the office
of Messrs. Johnston, at which the plaintiff was a pur-
chaser. One of the lots that he so bought consisted,
according to the catalogue, of " cotton waste, isinglasss,
pumice-stone, and brown paper, &c., &c." He had pre-
viously inspected the lots as arranged at some premises
that had been burned down in Leeds-street, and with the
lot in question at that time was an iron cable chain, the
non-delivery of which formed the ground of the present
action. It was alleged for the defence that the chain was
never intended to be sold, and that this had been inti-
mated to intending purchasers on their inspection of the
goods. That more satisfactory evidence on that point
might be supplied, his Honour adjourned the case till the
25th instant.
The court rose soon after four o'clock.