The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-15 00:00:00

THR gUIT9 LONDONI TIitIRSDAY EVENING, FEBRITAnY 15, 1856.

power to increase the proposed capital of 4,500,000 i. to
any amount to he certified by the East India Company.
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIEL—For
power to capitalise arrears of dividend, to create prefe-
rence shares, and to make regulations as to share capital.
WESTMINSTER TERMLNUEL—Extension from Clapham
to Norwood.

LAW INTILLICr'BNCE.—Feb. 14.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Gaildhall.—Before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jury.)
MIL COL-HOPE V. AGUADO.
(Continued from our tmpression of yesterday.)

When the court met at half-past one the witness came
into court, dressed en voyageur, and seemed rather as-
tonished to find himself in the witness-box.

Jean Ranzd examined' by the Attorney-General—l
was concierge at the house, 20, Rue la Bordere. I left
two years ago. I was concierge there in 1850 and 18M.
The preprieto: was Monsieur Dobcenf. I know the
Viscount Aguado. He had the house. He hired it for
a year, but he only occupied it during the fine weather.
During that time no one but the viscount occupied or
used the house. I had the key of the house when ho
was out. The count never met a lady there. I did not
know him. The viscount came there with his lady, a
dark lady. _ _

Cross-examined by Sir F. Thesiger—He came two or
three times a week with a lady. He did not reside there.
He did not sleep there. Sometimes he took a repast there.
Ido not knew Tallaudia, the coachman. There was a
person named Graujot, who did the gardening, but he
did not come regularly. The viscount only came in flee
weather. I cannot say whether the count had a dupli-
cate key. I usually opened the door, or my wife.
Monsieur Dobceuf is a portrait painter. He did not live
there at the time the ♦iscount rented the house. He
only rented it one year. It was 1850 or 1851. There
were two peacocks there. I can't say where they came
from. The peacocks were taken away when the viscount
went away. _ _ _ _

Dr. Douvin was recalled at his own request, in order

to correct an error he had made in his evidence yester-
day. He stated that he had said yesterday that he had
not come to London for a consultation in 1848, but cir-
cumstances lad brought it to his recollection that it was
in 1848 that he had so come.
This was the defendant's case.

Ann Rouse was then recalled by Sir F. Thesiger—
When I was in Paris with Mrs. Hope I went several
times to a bathing establishment with Mrs. Hope and
the young ladies and Mdlle. Junet. It was a place
where ladies were taught to swim. At first she used to
have a rope tied round her waist and held on a pole.
The man walked on a platform. She attempted to swim
according to hie dh,ectluns. I saw other ladies learning
in the same way. I have seen her swim without the
rope ; but the man walked on the platform. He said,
" Tres-bien, madame." It was a long bath ; it was a
bath on the Seine ; it might be as long as this court. I
have seen her swim along the bath before she left, in
1846, for Havre. Mrs. Hope is a very fair woman and
very thin.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General—l have seen
her strike out several strokes when she was by herself ;
perhaps four or five. I saw her once or twice without
the rope—it might be more. That was towards the end
of the time she went there.
The Attorney-General then summed up the case on
the part of the defendant.
Sir F. Thesiger proceeded to reply, on behalf of the
plaintiff, on the case presented for the defendant. He
could not but feel the treat disadvantage under which
he laboured in addressing the• jury after so long an in-
terval had elapsed since he first opened this case, band
since the most important witnesses on the part of the
plaintiff gave their evidence, a great part of which, he
feared, must necessarily have been obliterated from their
minds. He trusted, however, yet to be enabled to
satisfy them that the case of the plaintiff remained en-
tirely unaffected and established in spite of the evidence
adduced on the part of the defendant. His learned
friend had put it to the jury that the case of the plaintiff
was an entire fabrication, and got up, upon testimony
which had been suborned, as a counter move to the
proceedings instituted against Mr. Hope by his wife in
the ecclesiastical court. He (Sir F. Thesiger), on the
part of Mr. Hope, repelled with the deepest indig-
nation the imputation made by the defendant's coun-
sel, that he had been guilty of tampering with wits
nesses, or suborning evidence in support of his case.
It was only, forsooth, the witnesses on the part
of the plaintiff that had committed perjury. The
witnesses for the defendant, according to his learned
friend, were too respectable for any one for a moment to
think of imputing such an offence to them. He (Sir F.
Thesiger) would leave it to the jury to say whether they
thought his learned friend was justified in making such
a distinction. He would not recede from the position
which he bad assumed from the very first, that Mr.
Hope disdained the notion of receiving damages in money
as a compensation for an injury of this kind ; the plain-
tiff's sole object was to be placed in a proper position for
prosecuting the suit for a divorce in the House of Lords ;
but, at the same time, he trusted that, in the event of
the jury giving a verdict for Mr. Hope, they would not
award such an amount of damages as would degrade him.
TheAttorney-General (interrupting SirFrederick)said,
supposing the jury were of opinion that adultery had
been committed by the Count Aguado and Madame
Hope, he was quite content that it should be left to his
lordship (Lord Campbell) to say what the amount of
damages should be.
Sir FredelickThesiger stated he was ready to accede to
that preposition,
Lord Campbell—Do you wish me to state now what
the damages should be ? (Laughter.)
The Attorney-General—Let the plaintiff first catch
his hare, my lord. (Laughter.) Let us see whether he
gets the verdict or not.
Lord Campbell said he was qutte resay., hs t 4.0 es esst-
of the jury finding for the plaintiff, to say what the da-
mages should be. Upon that understanding,
Sir Frederick Thesiger resumed his address to the
jury. He contended that there was a fact spoken to by
the witness Desmaisons, which of itself was conclusive
that an act of adultery had been committed ley the Count
Aguado and Madame Hope. He meant her statement
that on one occasion, at midnight, after a ball had been
held at Frascati's, she saw the count enter the bed-room
of Madame Hope, and that about seven o'clock the next
morning, having business in the corridor, she saw him
again coming out of Madame Hope's room in his
shirt.' Again, both the witnesses, Desmaisons and
Soutreuil, stated in the most positive manner that the
count occupied room 122 on the visit to 'Havre, in
1846, which was denied by the defendant's counsel,
who alleged that he occupied room 39, and that 132
was occupied at that time by Prince Paul of Wurtem-
burg. In order to prove that the count did not occupy
room 122, the defendant called five different witnesses,
including M. Bredard, the proprietor of the hotel. But,
M. Bredard said, over and over again, that his memory
as to the room occupied by the count was entirely in the
books he kept relating to the visitors at the hotel, which
the court ruled he should not produce. The truth was,
that among all these five witnesses there was not one of
them who ventured to say that the count had ever slept
in 39, or that they ever saw any toilet articles belonging
to hint in that apartment. He contended that that part
of the case remained entirely unaffected by the evidence
on the part of the defendant, unless, indeed, the jury
came to the conclusion that the witnesses called by the
plaintiff to establish it had committed perjury. As
another incident, tending to give colour to the suspi-
cion that adultery had been committed, Sir Frederick
proceeded to comment on the statement of the wit-
ness Ann Rouse, that when in Paris in 1846, Mrs.
Hope, on one occasion, persuaded her husband to
go out and walk with the children ; that, after he
had gone, Mrs. Hope told her not to some into her
room until the bell rang, and that she (witness) saw
the Count Aguado, shortly after the husband left, alone
in Mrs. Hope's bed-room. The only attempt made by
the defendant's counsel to impugn the testimony of Ann
Rouse was the unworthy insinuation that a veil she wore
when in the witness box had recently been given her by
some one in the interest of the plaintiff, whereas it turned
out that she herself had bought the veil in Paris sotne
four or five years ago. Adverting to the visit of Mrs.
Hope to Folkestone, in 1848, and to the circumstances
proved to Lave taken place there at the house of Mrs.
Kitchener, he contended that the registers at Boulogne
and Folkestone came in strongly and irresistibly to cor-
roborate the evidence of Young, that immediately after
Mr. Hope left Folkestone for Holland, he (Ye ing) went-
over to Boulogne from Folkestone to fetch the count,
to Mrs. Hope. It was not for a moment questioned
that the count came to Folkestone the day after Mr.
Hope left there, and lived on terms of great inti-
macy with Mrs. Hope during the absence of bet hus-
band. Why did the wife send over to Boulogne in that
clandestine manner for the Count Aguado the moment
her husband left 3 Was it to be presumed that the
intercourse which ensued upon that visit of the count
_was of an innocent kind I He would ask that question
of the jury as reasonable and intelligent men. They
would remember that it must always almost of necessity
be that the commission of adultery could not be proved
by direct evidence in nine cases of ten. A jury having
to decide on such a question was usually driven to infer
its commission from a consideration of opportunity and
circumstances ; and, looking at what took place on that
occasion at Folkestone, and previously at Havre, and
again at the visit of the count to Mrs. Hope's bed-room
in Paris, he would say, in the words of our great dra-
matic poet--

"If imputation and strong circumstance
Can load directly to the door of trutk,
Here you have it."
He contended also that nothing had come out to shake
the evidence given by Mr. Howe, to the effect that when
Mrs. Hope was staying at Deepdene, in the autumn of
1848, she gays him a letter in the park there to take to a
gentleman whom she said he would find waiting for it at
the Redhill station, near Reigate ; it was addressed to
the Count Aguado, and he took it and gave it to a
gentleman who was waiting there for it, and that on
the next market-day afterwards, on going incidentally
into a room ii the White Hart Hotel at Reigate, in
que:t of a Mr. Clutton, he suprised the same gentle-
man to whom he bad given the lett4r, sitting on a sofa,
with his arm round J.Nlrs. Hope's waist. Dr. Douvin
had, it was true, coins forward to prove t' at at the very
time the Count Aguado was said to be at Reigate he was
btuot
wherethe dt,i)icet ocro,utnhto
wasegl
very precise to ai his with his f:
in that year, had a very imperfect memory as to the
I Y
i in
statement Florence
events in his own life in ISI3. Besides, the defendant's
counsel had been unable to produce the passport used by
the count or his servant on that journey to Florence,
though they had put in those of other members of the
Aguado family and their suite, who went to Florence in
that year. Again, supposing it true that the count was
at Florence in the autumn of 1848, there would be no
difficulty whatever in his coming over to England, seeing
Mrs. Hope at Reigate, and then rejoining his family at
(o: of
a the e t
igeffia:s given
aiFlorence. Sir Frederick then proceeded at some further
length, and in much detail, to comment upon the evi-
n;dao:
Tan
theitocpoanre
eloquent
part of the
eh
itne t dwe
peroration,it
tehn dtaini
attaas
do
auopetpandeeafrloed pratrhtt
to
the jury that the great salient points in the plaintiff 's

case remained unaffected by the counter-evidence given I
on behalf of the Count Agnado ' • and that the plaintiff's
witnesses, poor and humble though they were, who

spoke to circumstances leading irresistibly to the in-
ference of adultery between the count and Madame
Hope, were not on that account alone to be deemed to
have perjured themselves.
Lord Campbell then summed up amidst the profound
attention of a crowded court. His lordship said this
action had been brought by Mr. Hope against the Count
Aguado, for criminal conversation with his wife. He
was one of those who lamented that such actions might
be brought by the laws of England. He thought it was
a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country. Adultery
was a great crime, and should be treated as a great crime
and punished by the criminal courts, and not be made
the subject of a civil action. It had been a reproach on
the laws of England, that a man having suffered the
great injury of having his wife seduced could bring an
action at law, and ask the jury to give him a sum of
money as a compensation for his dishonour. Foreign
countries looked on this as a disgrace, and he himself
had had to defend our laws. He had heard the laws of
England reproached, on the ground that a man tired of
his wife might put a halter about her neck and expose
her for sale in a public market. He was sorry to say
that this practice sometimes, though it had not recently,
prevailed. He blushed to say that a man could bring
an action against another for criminal conversation with
his wife, and could recover damages. He hoped the
jurisprudence of the country would be corrected in this
respect. He would not read over the whole of the evi-
deees, for that be believed would not assist them, as
it must be fresh in their memory, but he would
briefly advert to some of the leading points. First
of all, then, he would direct their attention to
the evidence connected with Mrs. Hope's visit
to Havre, in 1846. The wit iesses Desmaisons
and Soutreuil had certainly given somewhat ex-
aggerated testiniony, for according to their state-
ments, after the Count Aguado had obtained possession
of Mrs. Hope, he was constantly toying with her where
they could be most easily seen ; he had either his hand
round her waist or his hand was in her bosom, or they
were indulging in other indecent familiarities ; but in
reference to this there was much impoz tent evidence
which the jury would do well to consider. The story
depended much upon the apartments occupied by the
Count Aguado. Now there was strong evidence af-
forded by Monsieur Bredard, the master of the hotel ;
Viscomto Aeneas), the defendant's brother, and Dr.
Donvin, that the apartment which these women had
said the count had occupied had not been occupied by
him. He thought, therefore, that they could not place
muck reliance on their testimony, though much they
had deposed to had been uncontradicted, and indeed
could not be contradicted—such as what they had
alleged had taken place at night. In the next place
there was the testimony of the woman Lowenstein, as
to what she had witnessed at Havre in 1850. Though
he could not see the improbability of the bathing scene
such as she had described, yet she had not given a very
satisfactory account of herself. She was leaving her
own country, and first she said she was going to Cali-
fornia, and next she said she was seeking to obtain
the situation of a stewardess. On her evidence, if
uncorroborated, he thought they could not find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. It had not been contradicted by
the baigneurs, for it appeared that Mrs. Hope bad
learned to swim in 1846. And now he would direct
their attention to the question in reference to the house
in the Rue de Monceau. Though it was possible that
the count might not have taken the house No. 3, the
weight of evidence on this part of the case was in favour
of the defendant. In support of the plaintiff's case,
they had the evidence of Young and Tallande, but
against that they had the evidence of the proprietor of
the house, who gave a satisfactory account of how it
had been let during the last three years, and a register
had been produced toshow its residents. In addition
to that, they had the evidence of Cohn, the coachman,
and of the valet of the Count Aguado. It seemed to
him that on this part of the case the evidence prepon-
derated in favour of the defendant. As to the house in
the Rue la Borders, the gardener's son had given his
evidence-fairly enough. He said he knew the Count
Aguado, and that he had seen him coming to the house;
but opposed to that they had the evidence of the
viscomte, and what was still more material, the evidence
of Ranee, the concierge, who negatived the idea that
the count had occupied the house in question. And
new he would turn to scenes of a different character.
Ann Rouse, who seemed a most respectable young woman,
had stated that she had seen that which would lead to
the presumption that the act of adultery had been com-
mitted. It was not necessary that the act itself should
be witnessed ; for if it were shown that there was a de-
sire on the part of the paramour of the wife, and that
they bad an opportunity of gratifying that desire, then
the legislature, whose duty it was to decide upon those
questions, would draw their conclusions as to the adul-
tery. This witness had said that Mrs. Hope, having sent
her husband and children out of the way, bad received the
Count Agusdo in her bed-room. It had been said by the
learned Ant irney-General that this was a foreign habit.
Though they knew what foreign 'manners were, he did
not think they would authorise such liberties as bad been
deposed to in this case. Arid now as to Folkestone. If
they could believe what had teen sworn to, then it would
be clear tnat an act of adultery had been committed. It
was not necessary that a witness should swear to an act
of adultery. If he did so, it would be in itself suspi-
cious. All that the law required was that there should
be such evidence that reasonable men could entertain
a strong- presumption that the act had been com-
mitted. essees Lu rolnestane ?
having gone to Holland, Mrs. Hope sends Young
to Boulogne to bring over the Count Aguado. She does
so in a clandestine manner. Young brings over the
count, who remains there during the absence of Mr.
Hope. A piano is obtained for his amusement, and on
the return of the husband the instrument is removed,
seemingly with the view of preventing Mr. Meese know-
ing that the Count Aguado had been there. If Mrs.
Hope and the Count Aguado had any intention of car-
rying on a criminal intercourse, they had full opportu-
enity of doing so. Again, Mr. Hope having l eft Folke-
stone, Mrs. Hope, on the pretence of going to London,
clandestinely goes to Boulogne, where she rereains two
nights, and then returns. They would reenllect the
contrivance which had been resorted to as to how she
should be admitted to her house—by throwin g gravel
against the window. There is no evidence to show that
she met the Count Aguado at Boulogne. It h act been
suggested that she went there for the purpose of
smuggling over some dresses, but it appeared to him
as far more likely that she went over rather for the
purpose of seeing the Count Aguado. They would now
come to the autumn, when Mrs. Hope was at Deep-
dens. The evidence of Vie witness Howe, if urscon-
tradieted, went to prove the commission of the act
of adultery. He would implore them,. on this
• point, to give due weight to the evidence adduced to
shake the testimony which Mr. Howe had given. 'Until
that evidence bad been adduced, he appeared to hi In to
, be a sincere and respectable witness. He had lived for
years with Mr. Hope, of Deepdene, who had given him
a good character. Howe had proved that one day, is
the park, Mrs. Hope had given him a letter addressed
to the Count Aguado, which she desired him to Eive
to a gentleman who would be waiting at the Red hill
station. He did so, and received an answer, wrinte n
in pencil, which he gave to Mrs. Hope. Some d aye
afterwards, in endeavouring to find the head stew: trd
in the Swan Hotel, he entered a room, and there ho
saw a lady and gentleman. It was sworn by Ho we
that -the lady was Mrs. Hope, and the gentlema.:n
was the person to whom he had delivered the letter
addressed to the Count Aguado, and that the genthee
man's arm was round the lady's waist. If uncoutr
dieted, that would justify the supposition that
adulterous intercourse had taken place. If Howe wove
not inventing, there must have bee* some lover of
Mrs. Hope's to whom she had addressed a letter as
the Count Aguado. No other was suggested as the
paramour. But then there was evidence on this pert
of the case deserving of the greatest consideration .
Three witnesses had been called to show that the'
statement of Howe was impossible, for the Count,
Aguada had left Paris for Italy at the end of July,
and did not return until the beginning of November,
whereas the circumstance deposed to by Howe took place
in September. He did not think there were any written
documents to corroborate their testimony. The three
witnesses were Dr. Dowd!), the courier, and the count's
servant. He did not see that the two former were to
bediscredited, but the latter was certainly not entitled
'to credit. As to what had occurred in Folkestone, in
1851, there was a strong presumption, if they believed
the evidenoe of the four witnesses, that the act of adul-
tery had been committed. If those witnesses were to be
believed the bed had been removed, and the doors be-
, twetvalitre. :Hope's and the count's rooms had been broken
open. Supenesing that were so, it must be taken that the
count did go into Mrs. Hope's room, and the inference
naturally would be that he did .so for the purpose of com-
mitting adultery. The Count de Morny had stated no-
thing to coat iradict this, but the count's valet had. Seeing
that the latter had not only been contradicted by four
witnesses, bu.t had contradicted himself, no great reli-
ance was to be placed on him, and the jury would consi-
der whether .be had not exaggerated the count's illness in
case
their hands,
iththe sbeeobser-
vationsggingtrying to ace aunt for having remained all night, and
ev e ry night, i
he
eh tw, i t ildisle master's
them to give leo weight to his observations if they did
not meet with their concurrence. If the charge of adul-
tery were prove d to their satisfaction, they would find a
verdict for the • plaintiff ; if not, they would find for the
olaesttehre's bedroom.
defendant. A's to the damages, they should be such as
not to throw a..slur on the plaintiff; but this was not a
case for large &mines, for, if it were true that an act of
adultery had In 'committed, then Mrs. Hope was not
the seduced b ut the seducer, and Mr. Hope had sus-
tained but a sli'osist loss. The jury would say whether
the act of adialtery bad been made out to their satis-
faction.
The jury, vithout snore than a minute's consideration
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
In pursuant le of an arrangement previously entered
into between l sir F. Thesis:el. and the Attorney-General,
the former hen ing stated that Mr. Hope, in the event of
a verdict being returned for him, would only claim such
damages en would give him a locus standi in seeking a
divorce) fro es the House of Lords,
Lord C, anpli ell estimated the amount of damages
at 2001.
2001.
A verdict s was then entered for the plaintiff—damages

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
CllO JCRV. LURCOTT AND ANOTDER.--LTDEL.
Mr. M. flbarnbms and Mfr. Maenamara appeared tothe plain lift', And Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Pulling re-
presents ,d th© defendant.
This was as,. action brought by the plaintiff, the well-
known railw 'ay carrier, to recover compensation in
damage s frorr the defendants, the proprietors and pub-
lishers 4 0 thf . Railway Tinto, for the publication of a

libel in that journal, reflecting on the character of the
plaintiff, and couched in the following terms The
Contraband Parcel Trade. Mr. Crouch, the gentleman
who has made himself somewhat notorious by carry-
ing on an illicit trade in small parcels, in defiance
of the rules of companies over whose lines he desires
free way, has sent us a printed statement of his griev-
ances. Passing over remarkabilities of style, the whole
affair resolves itself into this solitary fact. Mr. Crouch
could make a trade by smuggling, and afford to give
his customers a share of the plunder, if companies wou'd
only supply him with speed, safety, and regularity for
nothing. He is willing to pay goods' rates, precisely as
a parliamentary passenger, on paying his penny a mile,
might demand being conveyed by express. Were this
enterprising gentleman to show that his system afforded
greater security and speed than the companies could
themselves, we might advise his immediate employment
as parcels superintendent. So long, however, as he
merely takes an advantage of an error in statute law,
and thereby seeks to elude internal regulations of com-
panies upon matters of their own trade, we must rebut
his charge of monopoly precisely as we would a practical
insinuation into our till, a fraudulent cheque upon our
banker, or any other mode of obtaining a livelihood
under false pretences."

It would appear that small parcels are collected by the
plaintiff and his various agents at different places
throughout the country, and by them packed into one
large parcel and forwarded to their destination, where
they are sorted, and di-tributed to the parties to whom
they are addressed. By this the plaintiff saved con-
siderably on the carriage. This mode of conducting his
business, however, involved him in almost endless liti-
gation with .the railway companies, who were by this
means deprived of theimmense profit they received on
small parcels compared with large. The plaintiff having
been auccssful against the railway companies, issued a
pamphlet reciting his "grievances," entitled " Crouch
and the Railways' Monopoly," which he heralded to the
public in the following lines, as emblematic of the per-
secution which he had endured :
Go forth, my book, into this world of care,
Doomed, like thy master, all its ills to share.

In allusion to" railway monopoly" he in the pamphlet went
on to say, "I approached the huge monster, like David in ,
olden time, with my simple staff of honesty of purpose,
placing within my bag a few small stones consisting of in-
dustry, perseverance, and determination, to fight with
and slay my mighty Railway Goliah." It further stated,
speaking of "railway autocrats," and their "pecuniary
resources," " Yet still they gorge their already heated
stomachs by oppression, and enjoy the feelings of mono-
poly they would seek to uphold by the, destruction of
the honest, industrious, and persevering tradesman."
This pamphlet was sent to the Railway Times, and eli-
cited from that paper the article complained of.
The Lord Chief Baron, in leaving the case to the jury,
said—Tue question to be decided was, what was the
real matter complained of—was that article libellous, or
was it a fair comment en the notorious practice of the
plaintiff's mode of conducting his business If the jury
were of opinion that the article complained of was libel-
lous, it was for them to say what damages they thought,
under the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to.
The jury, having consulted for a short time, asked the
learned judge what amount of damages would carry
costs.

The Lord Chief Baron—There is some doubt whether
you ought to be told that. You ought to find damages
to the amount of the injury sustained.
The jury, after another brief consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 51.

PRICES OP SFI ARES
IN BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER. COM-
PANIES' STOCK.

From, the Official List.
PUBLIMED EVERY TIIEIDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING.

LONDON, TUESDAY, FE8.13, 1855.

GAS-LIGHT AND COKE COMPA

'IES.

Name of Company.

British • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Ditto Provincial....
Brighton • • • • .. • • • • • •
City of London .. • • • .
.:entinental (3d Cap.)...
Equitable ••••.. • • • •
Great Central ..
Imperial .. • • • • • • • • • •
Independent .. • •
London • • .. • .

Dividend 4 Amount
per 1 _of

Annum.

71.
51.
4. Os

Share.

Do., Pail. Preference
PcelY. •• •• ••• •• ••
Ratcllff •• •• • .„ •• •• .
United General ......
Westminster chartered
Ditto, New .. •• ...

S. d.
-
20 0 0
20 0 0
,100 0 0

Paid.

X s. d.

Price.

41. Os. 50 0 0
V. 16s. 50 0 0
7/ per cent 10 0 0
10..& bonus. 50 0 0
51, 40 0 0
o 0 0 0
61. per cent. 25 0 0
41. per cent. 60 0 0
51. 100 0 0

IL se. 50 0 0
§ ver cent. 60 0 0
51. per cent. 51 0 0

WATER-WORKS,

Namo of Company.

o 0 20
0 0
I
10 0 , 58%
all 29
all , 11
all 98 y,

Dividend Amount
per ' of

Annum.

5G 0 0 204
90 0 0 70

10 0

Share.

s.
East London
Grand Junction .... • • 4;. per tnt. 50 0 0
Kent.... .. 4l. per cut. ;100 0 0
Lambeth 'lOO 0 0
New River Company 2l. 10s.
Southwark & Vauxhall 51 per cnt. 1100 0 •
West Middlesex .. • .

Paid I Price.

A s. d.
100
all 66

DOCKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
X s. d. l £ s. d.
Commercial .. 41. pr cent. Stock. Stock.
East and West India Si. pr cent. Stock. 119 V,
East Country.. 2os. per sh.
London . .•• •• . 51. pr cent. Stock. 101
Ditto Bonds • • .... 41. pe.• cent.
St. Katharine •• • 4 per cent. Stock. $8
"outhampton 3l. os per c. 50 0 0 50 0 I
Victoria .. .. . „ 51. per cent. 20 0 0 12 0 0 15
BRIDGES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company, per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. £ a. d.
Hungerford • • l2
Southwark ...... • 100 0 0
Ditto New of 7% p.c '7os. per cent. 50 0
Waterloo ..... •• • • 100 0 0 44
Ditto Old Ann. of 8L 1/. 14s. 60 0 0 31
Ditto Nw ditto of 71. 11. 10s. Od. 40 0 0 2$
Vauxhall 1/. ss. 70 10 3 23
JOINT-STOOK BANKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. I per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Shale.
.£ s. d. £ s. d.
A.ustralasia 6/, per cent. 40 0, 0 all $2
British North American 61. per cent. 50 0 0
Commercial of London. 6/. per cent. ;100 0 0 20 0 0
Colonial
lonian 61. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0
Lond . Char. Bk. of Aus. 20 0 0 all 0 21
London and County .. 61. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 0 30
Londn and Westminstr 61, per cent. 100 0 0 20 • 0 0 40
London Joint• Stock ... 6/. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 27!4,
Provincial of Ireland.. 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0
Ditto, N ew... ...... 8/ . per cent. 10 0 0
all
National of Ireland.... 41. per cent. 50 0 0 22 10 I
Nat. Provincial of Eng. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 33 0 0
Ditto, New ........ 5/ per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Oriental Bank Corpora. 121. p. cl.-.&bs. 25 0 0 all
South Australia ...... 8, p. ct. & bs. 25 0 0
Union of Australia..., 40.. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0 66%
Ditto .. ........... 40/. per cent. 2 10 0
Union of London ..... 8/. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0
Union of Madrid ... • • 40 0 0 . all .