That would be Peter Westren of 27, Frederick Street, Edinburgh.
Westren was involved in an interesting legal case in 1888:
WESTREN v. MACDONALD AND OTHERS
An appeal case of considerable importance to firms doing business on the " approbation " system came lately before the Inverness Court of Session, and it is satisfactory to note, both in the interests of wholesalers and of common sense, that the judgement of the inferior Court has been reversed. The facts of the case are as follows :– An action was some time ago raised in the Sheriff Court at Inverness by Donald Macdonald, painter, Bridge Street, Inverness, to sequestrate the stock and effects of William Fraser, watchmaker and jeweller, 33, Bridge Street there, for rent. In that process a minute was put in by Peter Westren, working jeweller, 27, Frederick Street, Edinburgh, stating that a number of the articles of jewellery in Fraser's shop had been sent by him to Fraser " on sale or return," and he craved the Court to have these articles returned to him. The trustee on Fraser's estate also claimed the articles in question, and Sheriff-Substitute Blair repelled the claim of Westren and sustained the claim of the trustee, subject always to the hypothec of the landlord, Macdonald. The Sheriff- Substitute held that the right to return the goods had never been exercised by Fraser, and the obligation to pay the price had become absolute. Westren appealed to the Second Division of the Court of Session, and on Thursday the Court sustained the appeal and the claim by the appellant to the articles in question. Lord Young said that the general question in the case was whether goods sent upon sale or return, and which were in the shop of Fraser at the time of his bankruptcy, belonged to the dealer who sent the goods or to the creditors of the bankrupt. His lordship was of opinion that the man who sent the goods was entitled to them as his property. A contract of "sale or return " was quite familiar in practice. It was of this nature : the jeweller had his shop supplied with goods upon the footing that he might deal with them as his own by selling them, in which case he was held to be the purchaser at a previously agreed on price from the merchant who sent them to him upon these terms ; or he might, after keeping them for a longer or shorter period, decline to make them his own, or fail to sell them, in which case he was entitled to send them back as never having been bought by him from the merchant, and the merchant was entitled to demand them back as never having been sold. It was a very special contract, but it was quite intelligible, and the considerations and convenience of trade which had led to it were quite intelligible. A jeweller, even in much larger towns than Inverness, could not afford to purchase a stock of expensive jewellery, and in these circumstances he resorted to a wholesale jeweller, who allowed him to have his goods in the shop upon the footing of what was called " sale or return." Now, the property of goods so sent did not pass by that contract ; but if the shopkeeper sold these goods, then the property did pass, but if he became bankrupt without having done anything to appropriate these goods, without dealing with them as his own, his lordship had no idea that the property passed to him, and was attachable by his creditors. His lordship was of opinion that the contract of " sale or return " did not in itself pass property–the delivery of the goods did not pass property, it only placed the recipient in a position of acquiring the property at any time he pleased. Their lordships concurred, and the appellant (Westren) was found entitled to his expenses against the trustee.
Source: The Watchmaker, Jeweller and Silversmith - 1st September 1888