The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

THE. SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN I NG_ JUNE 2 1855

LINES Lii,ASED kT FIXED PENTALFL

LATV lETELLIGENCE ( THIS DA Y.)

OFFICIAL DESPATCH PROM FIELD-
MARSHAL LORD RAGLAN.

RAILWAY*.

Leal
Cocapa+,

talon. Primo,
yeater,tU

this day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE QUEEN V. HANCOCK'S PATENT.

(Front last Night's Gazette.)
WAR DEPARTMENT, JUNE 1.

Bedford and
Bletchley
Backghawsh.
Clydesdale J.
Col. Stour Vy.
Sad. and Hal.
E. Lin. g. 6 pc
Glas. Barr. &
Neils. Direct
Do. New......

The arguments in this case, which relate to a technical
point as the practice now in existence relative to the
granting and extension' of patents, occupied the Lord
Chancellor the whole morning.
(Before the Lt,rds Justices of Appeal.)

97 99
100 102

Lord Panmure has this day received a despatch and
its enclosures, of which the following are copies, ad-
dressed to his lordship by Field-Marshal the Lord
Raglan, G. C. B.
- -

ii.i -- 1:76

STURGE V. TRH EASTERN UNION RAILWAY OOMPANY.-..

Before Sebastopol, May 19.
My Lord,—l have the honour to enclose the copy of a
letter from Captain Montagu, of the Royal Engineers,
prisoner of war, dated Simpheropol, April 28, transmitting
a list of British prisoners who died either there or on their
road from Sebastopol.
I beg to forward this return in duplicate.
Your Lordship will see with satisfaction that the Bri-
tish Prisoners, who are sick in the hospital at Simpheropol,
receive equal, if not greater, attention than the Russian
soldiprs from the authorities, and are constantly receiving
presents from visitors.—l have, &c.,
The Lord Panmuro, , &c.

JUDGMENT.

The Lords Justices gave judgment to-day in this ap-
peal, which was argued before them at the commence-
ment of the last month. The case came before their
lordships upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Wood granting an injunction to restrain the
defendants from declaring or paying any dividend upon
the general shares of the Eastern Union Railway Com-
pany, before first satisfying the claim-of the plaintiff.
Several acts of Parliament bad been passed, giving
the company powers to grant preference shares, in order
to enable them to carry on their works, and in 1847 and
1848 the plaintiff purchased between 1,200 and 1,300 of
these preference shares, which were to pay 6 per cent.
Up to June, 1850, the dividends at the rate of 6 per cent.
had been regularly paid to the plaintiff, bat after that
period be bad received no interest for his money, and in
August 1853 the Eastern Union Railway Company ob-
tained an act of Parliament enabling them to redeem the
Preference Stock. In February 1854 the Company
paid the redemption money to Sturge, with interest
upon it, at the rate of 41 per cent. Sturge, upon this,
handed over his shares to the Company, insisting at the
same time that he was entitled to the payment of 6 per
cent. The defendants repudiating that claim, Sturge
filed his bill for an injunction and a declaration of his
rights. The Vice-Chancellor, upon the motion before
him for that purpose, granted an injunction, and from
that judgment the parties appealed. Upon that
appeal coming on before the Lords Justices
it was arranged that the appeal motion and the cause
should be heard together, and upon them the Court now
gave judgment. Their lordships, after going at con-
siderable length into the case, dismissed the appeal
motion, with costs, and declared that the plaintiff was
entitled to his claim for 6 per cent. interest up to the
time at which the Redemption Act passed in August,
1853 ; observing that the course adopted by the com-
pany as a body was not creditable to them in rendering
it necessary for the plaintiff to institute his suit, and to
that suit setting up such an unconscientious defence.
The defendants have therefore failed in their appeal
and in their opposition to the suit, and have to pay all
the costs.

Glstr.& Dn. Fr
Hrtlpl. Dk. &
Railway
Hull & Selby
Do. Shares.
Do. d Shares.
Lon.&Greenw
Do. Preferem.e
Lon., Til., & S.
Lowestoft gr.
4 per cent.
Do. 6 per et.
Manch. Bxtn.
and Matlock
Middlesbro' &

10i - 169

iii - 13
23 -24
11i - 111

RAGLAN.

"l/

nedear .
Midld.B
Newmartet
Bu: Exton..
N.& 3t.5 p.c.
Do. 6 per et.
Do. Fixeds p
Prest. & Wyre

4 -

* - uP
57 - 59

Do. Shrs. A
Roystn.& Hit.
Shef. Roth and
Goole g. 5 p. c.
Shrews. &Her.
S. Staffordsh.
Wear Valleygr
6 per cent
Do
Wilts&gomrst

130 - 135

.._
8 - 9
3 - 20.

3 - 33
91 - .93

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BURGOYNE V. MARRYATT.

Mr. Bovale applied for a rule, calling on the defend-
ant to show cause why an attachment should not be
issued against him for not answering certain interroga-
tories, required by a learned judge, under the 51st sec.
of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, which re-
quires the interrogatories sought from a defendant to be
delivered to a plaintiff within 10 days, and in default,
without sufficient cause be shown, the person so
neglecting should be considered guilty of con-
tempt of court, and be proceeded against accordingly
The defendant, to whom the interrogatories were ad-
dressed, had made five ox six applications to the Court,
and obtained extensions of time on the ground of ill-
health, but there was every reason to believe that he
could answer the interrogatories without his health sus-
taining any injury.
_ . .

Mr:Ju;tice Coleridge asked if this was the case when
Mr. Justice Erie refused an application for a further ex
tension of time.

Mr. Bovill said he beleved it was. The action was
for the recovery of 4501.3 n two promissory notes, and
the answers sought were naterial to the plaintiff's case.
Rule nisi granted.
FRENCH V. MOINE AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Robinson showed :ause against a rule obtained
for a new trial. The acticu was brought by the plaintiff,
a farrier and veterinary strgeon, against the defendants'
haulier at the Great Nothern Railway, to recover an
account for work and lalpur done and materials sup-
plied in shooing, roughing, &c., the defendants' horses
during last winter. At the trial, before Mr. Justice
Coleridge, the jury retuned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The question in dispute was whether the word "rough-
ing" was used at the tine of making the contract (which
was a verbal one), or mt. The plaintiff contended the
contract was to shoe not doctor the horses up to the
knee, at is. 4d. per horse, whilst the defendant contended
it was for roughing also.

Their lordships directed the rule to be made absolute,
he costs to abide the result of the new trial. •

REID AND SON V. DOSXINGS.-JUDGMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for an alleged breach of a charter party in not
supplying the defendant with a cargo of wheat from
Odessa. The defendant pleaded he was prevented from
doing so in consequence of the declaration of war with
Russia, and their lordthips' decision was for the de-
fendant.