The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-19 00:00:00

StiN, LONDO.

MISCELLANEOUS—Continued.
Crystal Palace, :2.1
Ditto, pref., 113
Crystal Palace, 6 per cent. perpetl. deb. 113.14
Gen. Credit and Hnanoe ot Loudon, lira., 60
Hudson's Bay, 171
International Financial Society, Bin.,
Italian Irrigation (Canal Cavour), 51
Ditto, 6 per cent. Bonds, redem. 1570, issued 90, 83
Joint 'stock Discount, 7
Ditto, new, 61
London Financial Association, lira., 251 6 51 6
London General Omnibus Company, 21
National Discount Comp my, lira., 111 3 11
National Steam Navigation, lim., 4j ,
North British Australasian,
Ocean Marine (Insurance),_l9l 20
Oriental Gas (lim.),
Ditto, new,•l
Peninsula and Oriental Steam,

Ditto, new, 43
Rio de Janeiro City Improvements, 2G-3
Royal Mail Steam, ni
Thames and Mersey Marine (Insurance), Ern., 7
Universal Marine (Um.) insurance, 5 I

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day),

COURT OF ,QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Crompton,

Blackburn, and Mellor.)
:1117LISEADY T. LORD EBURY AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
Duke of Bridgwater's trustees, the owners of certain docks
on the river Mersey, for negligence in towing a ship of
the plaintiff's into their docks, by which negligence the
ship became stranded on the beach and injured. The
defendant's pleaded that they ,were not liable for the da-
mage, the contract for towing the ship expressly relieving
them from Bush damage ; to which plea a new assignment
was added, that the damage arose through the defendant's
servant's wilful negligence in leaving the ship stranded
without attempting to get her off.

. _
The case came before the Court in demurrer as to the
form of pleading.

The Court allowed the demurrer, and directed a reforma-
tion of the pleading, so as to bring the case properly
before it.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CROSS V. CROSS (THOMAS INTERVENING).

In this ease, which was tried before a jury at the
sitting before Christmas, John Cross, the plaintiff,
endeavoured to provoke the revocation of a will alleged
to have been duly executed by his sister Harriett
Cross as far back as 1839. The testatrix had an interest
in a large sum of money left to the Cross family by a Mr.
John Berihill, the sister of the father of the testatrix. The
parties interested were to receive only life annuities on the
estate, but they had power to dispose of the capital by will.
Miss Harriet Cross executed the will five days before her
decease, and probate of it had been obtained in July,
1840. By the instrument James Cross, one of the brothers,
who was then abroad, derived an interest, and employed an
attorney named Thomas to commence proceedings in Chan-
cery to protect his rights in regard to the family property.
Thomas advanced money to James Cross, in consideration
of which James Cross gave him a mortgage upon the inte-
rest under the will of llarriet Cross. The will of Harriet
Cross was witnessed by her two sisters, one of whom had
been obliged to leave the country, having com-
mitted a breach of trust. The plaintiff, Sir John
Berihill Cross, new alleged that the will was
a forgery, and the intervener, Thomas, was the only
party at present interested in establishing the validity of
the will. At the trial Mary Cross said that the attestation
in her name was in her handwriting, bUt the signature of
the testatrix was a forgery. The jury found for the will,
and probate was granted. A rule was then obtained on
certain affidavits, and on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence for a new trial. A rule was then obtained,
and argued at length at the last sitting, and now stood over
for judgment.
The Judge Ordinary now decided in favour of the ver-
dict. His lordship granted the intervener (Thomas) his
costs out of the estate, and condemned the plaintiff in the
costs of Alexander Cross, one of the defendants.

COUB,T OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Hoiroyd.)

His Honour, being the Commissioner of the day, was
occupied the greater part of the morning in hearing applica-
tions in the private room.

IN RE BANKS.

This bankrupt was a carpenter in Cambridge-street,
Bethnal green, and this was a meeting for last examination
and discharge.
Mr. R. Buchanan was for the bankrupt, and applied for
an adjournment, as no accounts had been filed in conse-
quence of the ill health of the bankrupt.
The case was adjourned accordingly.
IN RE BURTON.

This bankrupt was an optician in the Minories, and this
was an adjourned meeting for examination and discharge.

Mr. C. V. Lewis appeared for the assignees, and Mr.
B. Sorrel, Mark-lane, for creditors, and consented to the
bankrupt's passing, but the question of discharge was ad-
journed till the 6th May, as the bankrupt's transactions as
to the disposal of his property were not satisfc4tory.

IN RE ELLIS.

This bankrupt was a plumber, &c , in the Minories, and
surrendered under a petition opened by Mr. Sorrell, Mark-
lane. The debts are about £1,000; assets not yet stated.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Wir slow.)
IN RE JACKS—THE BRITISH COLUMBIA OVERLAND
TRANSIT COMPANY.

The was a meeting for choice of assignees in the matter
of this bankruptcy. The bankrupt had been a director of
the above company, and was sued by a Mr. Collingwood,
who had taken a passage of the Company, who failed to
complete their contract. The sum claimed for passage
money was £l6O, and the costs of the action ran up the
judgment to £6OO.
Mr.Collingwood proved his debt, and was chosen assignee.
Mr. H. Harris, of Moorgate-street, is solicitor to the
estate.

The bankrupt is Comptroller of Corn Returns for the
Board of Trade.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

DAMAGES FOR NOT EMPLOYING A COOK.-NOVEL POINT.
DUMBRILL V. REICHARDT.

This was an action to recover damages for breach of an
agreement, Mr. Perry, from Mr. Buchanan's, appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Beard representing the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been engaged by the
defendant, who is an eatinghouse-keeper, as cook at 30s.
per week and board. The defendant's wife, however, wrote
a letter to the effect that she believed the place would be too
hard for him.

Mr. Perry called plaintiff. who said that he had been
employed as a cook at St. James's Hall. He could have
a good character from the head cook there.
Defendant observed that as plaintiff had left a situation
in consequence of the work being too hard, he felt justified
in refusing to employ him.
His Honour—l think that a man is justified in leaving a
situation if he finds the work too hard for him. lam of
opinion that defendant ought to have given a week's wages
when he refused to employ plaintiff.
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.

A Uniform Plan for Metropolitan Railway

Schemes.

If the metropolis must be cut up into sections by rail-
ways, the least that we can demand is that the companies
shall be made to conform to some uniform and general
scheme, and that the junctions shall be sufficiently nume-
rous to afford adequate facilities to the metropolitan
traffic. This is a subject which Parliament will be bound
to investigate and settle during the coming Session, for it
would be intolerable to find, a few years hence, that we had
allowed the railway companies to take possession of the me-
tropolis ; and that our means of transit had been contracted
or rendered inconvenient by blundering projects or
jealous contentions. What the future of railways will be
in this metropolis is not easy to conjecture. Hitherto
London railways have been, for the greater part, merely
means for the conveyance of persons and goods to and from
the metropolis and -the provinces. The internal traffic
of this great city has scarcely come under the con-
sideration of the projectors and managers of these
schemes, The Metropolitan Railway, however, has inau-
gurated a new eta, and has already found many ambitious
imitators, Most of these, it is certain, will be thrust out of
the field of contest next session, and the real trial of
strength will be between Mr. Fowler, withhis Metropolitan
Extensions, embracing the inner and outer circle lines, and
Mr. Hawkahaw with his junctions with the Charing-
cross Extension. It is premature to forecast the proba-
bilities of a struggle between two such doughty champions.
If Mr. Fowler have the report of the Lords' Committee
in his favour, he has against him all the interests along
the Thames embankment; besides the inherent fault
of the incompleteness of his design in its working
details. We have shown that, as it affects the City, Mr.
Fowler'e circles do not provide for military junctions with
the long lines; whilst Mr. Hawkshaw proposes to unite the
Great Northern, the Midland, and the North-Western with
his station at Charing-cross, whence passengers will be
carried straight into the City to the Cannon-street Terminus.
By this line, therefore, our friend Humphrey Hardworker
would be enabled to got to Birmingham without a change of
carriages, and without making such an extraordinary cir-
cumbendibus as he would be required to make by the rival
railway.—City Press.