Police Intelligence.

Evening Star, Volume III, Issue 846, 22 January 1866, Page 2

Police Intelligence.

THIS DAY. MAYOR’S COURT. (Before W. Mason, Esq., Mayor.) DRCrUKENNESS. James Sayers, John Johnston, John Smith, and Angus Smith were charged with this offence, and each fined 20s, with the usual alternative. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., B.M. CIVIL, CASES. Mills, Dick and Co. v. It. George, claim of L 7 os for printing, &c. Mr M‘Kay, from the offices of Messrs Howarth,' Barton and Howarth appeared for tha defendant, who pleaded not indebted. The plaintiffs’ case was that in accordance with the defendant’s instructions, they printed 90 show cards on enamel and gold for which they charged L 6 15s, and paid 10s to Messrs OobTo axid. Co. fox forwarding them to the plaintiff, and that they afterwards received them, accompanied by a letter, the tenor of which was that the plaintiff refused to accept them because they were not according to “ copy.”—[One of the cards was produced, and upon examination it was found that instead of “George’s” in one line, and “Union Hotel” in the second, as in the “ copy,” the plaintiffs had printed “ George’s Union” in one line, and “ Hotel” in the second.] Thos. George was called as an expert, and considered the work done properly. The defence set up was that in consequence of the work not having been done according to copy, it was perfectly useless. The Magistrate codsidered that the plaintiffs had not carried out the work according to contract ; the terms of which must be strictly adhered to before a plaintiff can recover. J augment was given for the defendant. E. DeCarle and Co. v. Cargill and Co., a claim of Lls, value of 30 cases of whiskey, cash paid for export entry under bond, and loss sustained through the defendants refusing to deliver it, L 5 ; in all L2O. Mr Ward appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Kenyon for the defendants- The plaintiff purchased from the Trustees in the estate of Messrs Currie and Smith, • the warrants for 30 cases whiskey stored in Messrs Cargill and Co.’s Bond, and'subsequently» upon sending for the goods, was refused delivery of them. (The endorsement on the warrants by the defendant’s agent was admitted.) Mr Kenyon asked for a nonsuit on the following grounds : Istly, That warrants gave no legal delivery of the goods in the warehouse of the defendants, unless the defendants expressly allowed such delivery; 2ndly, The lien of the defendants on the goods, consequent on the dishonor of the acceptance of the original vendee, was sufficient cause to withhold delivery. The Magistrate having wished to hear Mr Cargill’s evidence before deciding the nonsuit point, that gentleman was put in the witness-box, and stated the warrants for the whiskey had been sold to Messrs Currie and Smith upon an acceptance, and which was now in his possession dishonored. The Magistrate said that, as the question was a very important- one, he would take time to consider it, and would deliver judgment on Monday next. F. Macarthy v. Michael Brown, a claim of L4O, amount of an 1.0. U. This case fell through, the summons having been served at the defendant’s residence, subsequent to his departure for Melbourne. In the cases of Wm. Watson v. Thos. Burke, a claim of L 4 15s for board and residence, and judgment by default was given for the amount aud costs. The following cases were dismissed, there being no appearance of either party :—Talbot v. Smith, Mills, Dick and Co. v. John Fraser ; same v. Amos ; Boyse, Mudie and Co. v. Bassett; and John Telfer v. A. Hamilton. Mills, Dick and Co. v, T. Biessel, & claim of L 5 4e fid. Plaintiff non-suited, no appearance.