STRACHAN versus FISHER To the Editor of the Empire SIR – There is an error in the report of this case in your issue of this day, which, as it affects the character of Mr. George Strachan, a partner in the late firm of Park and Strachan, you will, I am sure, permit me, in justice to that gentleman, to correct. The action was in trover for the recovery of ten thousand hogsheads of brandy, which where presented by ten certificates, well known to merchants as Bonded Warehousekeepers’ Certificates. It was proved that by the custom of merchants the delivery of these certificates, not only transferred the rights to the possession of, but the right of property in, the brandies they represent. Mr Frederick Strachan, a well known storekeeper of Bathurst, is the plaintiff; George Strachan is the plaintiff’s cousin. You state that, on the part of the defendant, it was “asserted that Park, Strachan, and Co. obtained the certificates as a loan in order to examine the strength of the spirits, and that they obtained then under a promise either to return them or to pay for them.” Now, it was no so asserted, for it was in evidence that Mr. George Strachan was at the time (September, 1855) not in the colony, that he was then on his voyage from England here; and that, on his arrival in Sydney, on the 7th November, 1855, finding the firm had, during his absence, been irretrievably ruined by misconduct of his late partner Park, ho on the thirteenth November, 1985, sequestrated the partnership estate, Mr, George Strachan his since obtained his certificate. The value of the brandies was admitted to be £360 and not £350 as you report; the Solicitor-General emphatically disclaimed imputing improper conduct to the plaintiff, and his good faith and honour were …