The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-26 00:00:00

128 i

MISCELLANEOUS—Continued.
Egyptian Commercial and Trading, lira.,
Electric Telegraph, 1084 4. .;
English and Australian Copper,"2
Gen. Credit and Finance of London, Um., 6/
Hudson's Bay, In
International Financial Society, 11/
Italian Irrigation (Canal Cavour),
Ditto, 6 per cent. Bonds, redem. 1870, issued 90, 83
Joint-stock Discount, lim., 61

. _
Ditto, new, 61
London Financial Association, lira., /
London General Omnibus Company, 2i
Mercantile Credit Association, hm., 7
National Discount Company, lira., li 10i
Nerbudda Coal and Iron, 51:
Thames and Mersey Marine (Insuranc • lira., 71
United Kingdom Telegraph Co., lira., 2/
Universal Marine (11m.) insurance, 5a

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

o----

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary.)
O'KANE V. O'KANE AND PALMERSTON.

Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., in this case said he had to

move the court on the part of the respondent to call upon

the petitioner to show cause why he should not proceed
with the caso to trial, or, failing to do that, that the peti-

tion should be taken ,ff the fi,e of the court. Tho peti-

tion, which contained but ono vague plea of adultery, was
filed on the 19th of October, 1863; citation was served the

21st of October ; answers were filed on the 28th of the same

month ; and on the 17:h of November an order was made

for further particulars to be supplied to the co-;espondent.

The Judge Ordinary said it must be clearly understood

that he did not think the interests of the respondent or

co-respondent were identified or identical.

Mr. D. Seymour said he appeared solely for the re-
spondent, and it was especially desirable, as far as she
was concerned, that the petitioner should be compelled,
by an order of that Court, to proceed with the case, or
that it should be withdrawn. He trusted his lord-
ship would direct such a course to be pursued,
as, since the order of the court or forwarding further parti-
culars, no step had been taken in the matter. Of course the
respondent did not, and could not, complain of the non-com-
pliance of thepetitioner with the order of the court; but what
she desired was that the case should either be proceededwith
or abandoned. The learned counsel having read an extract
from a solemn declaration of Mr. Horsley, a solicitor, and
officer of the court, which stated that the petition was pre-
sented for purposes of extortion, and that the petitioner had
no case at all, concluded by asking the Court to grant his
application.

The Judge Ordinary said the Courts of Law were open
to all suitors, and it was for the benefit of all that as little
delay as possible should be sanctioned in proceeding with
matters brought before them. In no court was it more
desirable than in the Divorce Court, before which num-
bers of persons might be dragged and charges kept
hanging over them without the least reason. The respon-
dent had nothing to do with the refusal of the petitioner to
obey the order of the Court made on the 17th Nov. If the
particulars were not furnished, it was but fair to suppose
that none existed that did affect her; but what she
had a right to complain of was, that a vague charge
should be kept pending for an indefinite period of time
in that Court; In cases of a similar nature to that now
before it, the practice of the Court was to grant a rule calling
upon a petitioner to attend the next court day, and show
cause why he did not go forward with his ease ; or, fail-
ing in that, the petition was dismissed. That was the
order he should make in the present case.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, 1864,

ITATRICULATION.-JANumtr.

The following is a list of candidates who passed
the /ate Examination for Matriculation :

FIRST DIVISION.

Fletcher Beach, Queen's College, Birmingham—Alfred
Jngg Bedells, Lancashire Independent College—Alfred
William Bean, private study—George Gilbert Birkett,
private tuition—John Brock, Wilton Grammar School—
James Thomas Brown, City of London School—Samuel
Bull, Llandaff House—Francis James Carey, City of Lon-
don School—Charles Henry Carter, private tuition
—John Augustus Tatam Cartwright, Lincoln Grammar
School—Edward Colson, Feist( ad Grammar School
—William Richard Cortis, King's College School—
William Theophilus Davison, Huddersfield College—
Charles Henry Joubert De la Fert6, King's College School
—Edwin Bourdieu Eagland, E. F. H. Sykes, Woodford—
William Fiddian, Huddersfield College—Oliver Le Nevu
Foster, private tuition—James Giddens, Barton School,
Wisbech—William Meigh Goodman, private tuition—
Robert Harris, University College—John Anderson Hart-
ley, Woodhouse Grove School —Edward Heath, King's
College—Charles Robert Hodgson, City of London School
—Albany Charles noggins, North London Collegiate
School—Henry Jones, Normal College, Borough-road
—Ughtred James Kay-Shuttleworth, Harrow and pri-
vate tuition—John Homer Killick, private study—
Carlton John Lambtrt, City of London School—
Robert Moses Lewis, Wesleyan Collegiate Institution,
Taunton—Samuel M'Alister, Santry School, Dublin—
Henry Jacob Mannings, Marlborough College—Howard
Martin, Rev. J. Fletcher, Christ church—Wm. Lockwood
Martin, Private study—George Buck Meachen, Mr.
Buck's, Ipswich—James Mortimer, Welsh Collegiate
Institution, Llandovery—Jobn L. Gough Mowat, Wes-
leyan Collegiate Institution, Ta unton—Robert Anderson
Mowat, Private study—Frederick Pollard, Independent
College. Taunton—J ohn G. Robinson Powell, Private
study—John James Ridge, City of London School—
Christopher Ridley, St. Mark's College, Chelsea—
Robert Hobson, Eagleson& School—Thomas Ruddle, Pri-
vate study—Richard Thomas Smith, Wesley College,
Sheffield-- Edmond West Symes, University College—John
Taylor, King's College School—John Walmaloy, Normal
College, Cheltenham—David Watson, Clewer House
School—Frank Watson, Godolphin School—John Whit-
cher, City of London School—John Murch Wigner, King's
Lynn Grammar School—John Wilkins, Self-tuition—John
Wooder, Private study—William Evatt Wright, Upping-
ham Grammar School—Thomas Pilkington Young, Owens
College.