The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-11 00:00:00

n. From that moment he c

telling mo he would make me a pre-
sent of it ; and on Mrs. Palmer coming into the room,
prom which she had been absent a short time, he told
her to throw the paper (which was lying on the table)
Now, as regards the notions that
n to entertain of his brother's death,

signing the paper,

into the fi

William and you se,

I entertained no suspicions. I feel, and still feel, ex-

tremely obliged to Mrs. Palmer for her kindness to me,
which could not be greater if I had been a relative of
her own: Considering how shocking it would appear,

some proof more than mere surmises, to, accuse
any one of a foul crime, which your letter more
than hints at. If your mind is not easy, go
over yourself and make enquiries ; but pau e
ere you do anything to render Mrs. Palmer so
uneasy as so dreadful a suspicion must make
her. Think in such a case what the feelings of your own
wife would be, and consider mine. That Mr. Palmer has
acted unjustly in money matters I have every reason to
believe ; his letters I have placed in the hands of the
Brewery, and if they think proper, and that there are suffi-
cient grounds, they will, no doubt, investigate the matter.
Thanking you and Mrs. Bostock for your kind invitation,
of which I shall be happy to avail myself, allow me to
subscribe myself, your sincere friend)

without

R 3. BLADON.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-YESTERDAY

COURT OF QUEEN'S
.BENCH

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Campbell,
Justices Coleridge, Erie, and Crompton.)

THE QUEEN ON THE '-PROSECUTION OF THE REV. W.
MARSHALL v. LLOYD.-11Ir. Sergeant Shee applied for a
criminal information against the defendant, the proprieto7,
printer, and publisher of a Welsh paper called the Ye
Amp-au, printed in Liverpool. in the Welsh language, and
circulated in South Wales. The applicant, the Rev. W.
Marshall, was ordained in 1839 as a Roman Catholic priest,
and was occupied in missions in and about London till 1849.
In the latter end of that year he was moved to Ipswich,
at Christmas, 1853, to the Abyravon and Bridgend
The libel complained of was published on the
gnd after referrine to the mission of the rev.
'livering by young ladies
)ther sects residing in that

I also that of tract c 1(

Couneeted with the variou.

neighbourhood, proceeded to charge him with denioralising
the town to a dreadful extent, to a deriliction of his pastoral
duties, and that he had been seen in a peculiar position at
night with a young lady, one of his flock, The rev. gentle
man, by his affidavit, denied most positively the

;ertioris

contained in the libel, and that his conduct towards females
had ever been in accordance with the requirements of his
position a 3 a person who hid been educated for and
ordained a Roman Catholic priest. The court granted the

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lard Chief Baron, Barons

Aiderion, Martin, Bramwell.)

TAYLOR v. • LAIRD.—The Lord Chief Baron delivered
the judgment of the court in this case. This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, captain of a vessel, against the
defendant, an extensive shipowner of the city, for an
alleged breach of an agreement. The plaintiff was engaged
by•the del, ndant as captain of one of his vessels engaged
in the African trade. After his arrival in the Niger, he
was summarily dismissed from the command of the vessel,
and on his return t) this country lie brought an action
ag 'inst. the defendant for damages. The plaintiff claimed
£2OO ; but on the trial a verdict was returned only for £5O
to move the Court for an increase of damages if

with lel

he was entitled under the agreement to recover more than
la, the amount of a month's wage. The Court were of
opinion that the plaintiff could not recover more than £5O,
and ordered the verdict to stand for that amount. _

WILSON V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—The Chief Baron gavo judgment in this case,
which was argued some time ago, and which stood over
until the decision was given in another case, which, how- •
ever, was found not to raise the same point. This was an
action against the company for the alleged misconduct of
one of their servants, in having taken the plaintiff
into custody for mutilating a railway ticket, and
it was objected at the trial, before the Recorder of
Manchester that the servant having acted without authority,
the company were not liable for the act complained of. The
learned recorder, however, held that there was evidence to
go to the jury of an implied authority by the company, and
a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages £25. After
mature consideration, the majority of the court were of
opinion that the recorder was right in leaning the question
he did to the jury, therefore the rule must be discharged.
Judgment accordingly.