The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-03 00:00:00

chant in Manchester, and has also other establishments in
Cheshire and Ireland. The defendant was the agent for the
Royal Exchange Insurance office in Manchester. In Octobfr
1854, the plaintiff desired to effect an insurance with the
Royal Exchange upon a large quantity of corn in his store
at Westport, in Ireland, the value of the stock being bb,to
£6,000. On the 21st of o,2tober the policy
the plaintiff's office. Mr. Lever objected to the terms
c%
the insurance, on the ground that the warrantry denljritio
was too stringent. Subsequently it was discovered that
policy had had a clause inserted in it, which almost rentlcr,_"l
it a nullity. After the case had been partially heard, tr,
was brolg,ilt
defendant retracted the observations which had been alure,
aod the case terminated. His lordship thought it ACe
propor conclusion for such an action.
PETRE V. NUTHALL.—This was an action brought 11 tll..
plaintiff, to try a case of tresss over some land in It'e,lt
dale. There was a great number of witnesses, and
amount of contradicOry evidence, to prove the case, but

resulted in the plaintiff agrceing—io—a ino-nsut.
FLOWER AND ANOTHER V. CLOSE.—Thi6i was an ae'i
„tiff
to recover damages for a libel and slanier. The P13',1,"h0
was a respectable attorney, living at Kerkby Stephen, -vios
had been married for some years, and the defendant
represented as a genius, a poet, and a printer. It appear
that after the defendant commenced the printing tra's".
employed the plaintiff, but from various scurrilous publick.
tions that had appeared, ha had taken away his
lih 1,
After that the defendant circulated a most scurrilous
to the effect that "a certain lawyer beat his
a slashing doctor, and it is no wonder, as it would beat
(11
Paul, who could not keep a v.daptuous beauty lying
sucking oranges, and reading novels." LerLothe
suggested that as the libel had been published by
the
defendant it would be much better fur him to wife
expenses, end make a very humble apology. Mr. D-11° The
for the plaintiff, would consent to such a COurse. did
defendant refused to comply. Mr. Knowles then root
not insult the jury by saying another word, but hope" the
the jury would give such damages as would preventtect
defendant pursuing such conduct on his return, and Pr°A,,tt
the plaintiff's wife from such annoyance. Nr'
not delll,4:t
then addressed the jury for the defendant,
the publication of the lib,!, ly.:t alluded to the defet-cif
being an eccentric character, add one who did 0t.73-dfy
what he really was about. Without attempting to .1° 00,
the libels, which he admitted were unjustifiable. he cae.
mented upon the plaintiff bringing the case from Westtaon
land to Liverpool to he tried, the only assignable rs'
e -
being to increase the cost. His Lordship summed :l thedo
case, and in the course of his observations designated
Clio
man who struck a women as a coward and a dastard
man who attacked her private character by libelling
ge
not either, because he did not possess the courage' 1101
reviewed the whole case with groat minuteness, after XV
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damag
and cns's. igintiff
BRETHERTON V. FLETCHER.—In this action the P.--ton.
was Mr. Bretherton, a tailor and draper, living in 011,r- of
square, Liverpool, and the defendant was the Inelegb-o-ocls
the branch bank. The sum sought for was £35, fors -is
a clerk
supplied to the son of the defendant, formerly
sv.aborn,
the employ of Messrs. Gibbs, Bright and Co, hoss
salary, but who was then living with the defendant, at -
house the clothes were delivered. The son had been 111/•
r ago,
plied with a suit of clothes to attend his sister's mar 2 do
and subsequently with an equipment for Arnerics,.;
voyage to which place he was lost. After some eclue
bad been adduced, the plaintiff was nonsuited.
The court then adjourned.