The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-19 00:00:00

86 90
170 175

12.10

1701 70

BRITISH POSSESSIONS.
Closing
'hart Railways Paid. Prioe. Business done
100 atlantic Lawrence all 60 t 3
S itJ liom.,Barodadr.Cent Ind 10, 105 1,6
Gin 5 per cent..
20 Do. New
20 Do. E. Shares
Y.Ol Butlatu and Laxe Huron all 64 66
10 Do. Preference
100 I 13ullalo,13rant,drGodrich
p. ct. bds. Aug. 1, 187
100 Do. do. July 1, 1.87:, 100
100 Do. do. June 1, 1o;9 100
et k3lcutta..&S.liaitn.(Ein 100 102 104
it Cape Town Dock Seri) 100 lot 103 1011 21
stock Eaetn. Bengal gu. sp. 4 100 107 108
stock East Indian. gu. sp. c. ton 1( 61 176 'O7
20 Do. do. G Ext lO 4 14p 104
20 Do. do. H do. 10 4 14E,
stock Grand Trunk of Canada tun 21 Y 2
100 Do. Ist Pref. Bonds.. all 73 76
100 Do. do. deferred__ all 60 33
100 Do. 2d Pret. Bonds.. all 6. 70 65
100 Do. do. deferred.-- all 48 52
100 Do. 3d P, ef. stock
100 Do. do. deterred.—... all 38 42
100 Do. 4th Pref. stock... all 28 30 28
100 Do. do. deferred...... all 23
stook GtlndiaPentn.gua.sp.o 100 1074 1081 1084
20 Do. New gua. sp. c... 12 1 111
20 Do. January, 1862 .. 8 1 14;
stook Gt. South.of India (Lim,
guaranteed 5 per cent. 100 103 105 104
204 Gt. W. of Canada Shares all 94 101
20$ Do. New
100 Do. 6 p.o. '73 witlet opt. all 92 95
100 Do. 54 p. o. do. '77-8.... all 86 88
10 Indian Branch Limited 2 4 ip
stock Madras. guar., 5p.0. .. 100 105 106
stock Do. 41 p. c. Extension 100 100 101
stock Dc.4k d 0......... 100 06 100
20 Do. Fifth Extension. 2 --
stock Ilelb.Corp. 6p. 0. Bnda. 100
50 3lelb. & Hobson's Bay. all 57 59
100 Do. 7p. a slortg. Bds. all
20 Newßrunswick Cands
Class A and B all 8 5
N.lll.C'das p 0 Ist pf bds 100 82 84
stock &hide (100 1051 1061 1064
st IDo. Delhi 1 ' 103 104 106
Do. do rs. 1j,,? 2 1 fp
20 Do. Punjaub all 4 to
it Do. Do. ........ , , 100 104 106 1054
took Do. Indus. St. Flo.) 100 101 103 ,
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
D— DD'D:II....
G7ed6:-.Ypp Inscribed
.c..pP. fadi
sbnr.a..
p.
t.:csjs.A. jtl.ueoB.uupt.
(14.
11000000000000 11190001111
1119(003333
91202
10391 91310
- Do.Ap dz. Oct 1880 100 109 111
Do. 1890 100 109 111
-
IDo. Jan. Sr July, 1891.. 100 113 115
Ceylon, N0v.1878, 6p c 100 110 112
Mauritius 6 per cent .. 100 107 108 1074
INatal Gov. 6 per cent.. 130 147 109
,N.B.Gov.6p.o.Ja.drJuly 100 103 Les
Do. 6p. c.Ap. & Oct. 100
- IN. S.W. Gov. 5 p I,lBot. 100 101 102
I Du. sp. c.,lBti to I 87( 100 101 102
- Do. d0.,1888 drupwdt 100 101 102 101
New Zealand 6 p cent. 100 110 112
Nova Scotia Gov. 6p. c.
1 sterling, 1875 lOO 104 106
Queensland Gov. 6p. c lOO 111 113
lb. Aus G6p.c.lB7B.drup lOO 111 113
Vlo.Gov. 6 p.c. Ja.drJuly 100 107 109 106
Do. 10 D.O. ADAZI)et.. 10 109 110 1094 9

BRITISH MINES.
2 Cambrian Consol. Gold 1 1 id
lehflord Amalgamated 374 38}
I Devon G. Con.. (Tavist ) 1 550 660
East Bassett (Illogan) 30 6 / 6.'
1 East Clogau Gold Ltd 53. id par
East Caradon '2.14.e 25 261 261
East Cam Brea... ' 3.4.0 71 71
--E. WlRussel (Tavistk.) 8.9.0 51 61 61 6
Gam..tSt.Anbyn(Gwen.) 581 11 13
Great South Tolgus... 17s 5 61
G. 'Wheal Vor (Ilelstoni 40 11 12
Grenville ..
fiend's-Foot 6.12 80 41
liingston Downs 4.18.0 11 24
Lady Bertha
Nlargaret (tiny Lelant. t 8 20 22
Marke Valley..
4 .Nlyndy Iron Ore (Lim ) 25 11 p d
New Setun l9l 9 100
-- North Downs 2l 16 2
N.Wh'i Basset (Mogan 3.1.0 24 35
North Wheal Crotty
Par Consols (n Blazey,
20 Providenee(Uny Lelnt.) 10.6.7 • 3 45
South Caradon(St.Cleer, 11 410 420
S. Carn Brea (Illogan) —
S.Wheal Fran. (Mogan, 18.16.9 60 65
Stray Park 30.17.6 15 37
5 , famar Silv.& Lead Alin. 44 1 1
grin Crott 9 19 20
%Vest Basset (Illogan) l5 95 105
W. Cr radon (Liskeard; 5 19 21
West Seton
Wheal Basset (Megan) 51 774 821
Wheal Buller(ltedruth) 5 224 274
Wheal Kitty (U.Lelant) 2.0.6
Wheal Mal 3
eatr.oynAn n (I'd en.)
WhealLudcott
5885 16101 17102
Wheal Treiawney (Lis ) 7 20 21
Wheal Union 3.17 25 3

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Channel', and Pigott.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SILLIAN AND OTHERS.-THE

SEIZURE OF THE ALEXANDRA.

Mr. Karslake, Q.C. continued his argument against the
rule that there should be a new trial. He contended that;the
equipment of the ship should be of a warlike character, in
controversion of the view held by the Attorney-General at
the trial that even an innocent equipment rendered the ship
liable to forfeiture. He continued in support of the view held
by Sir H. Cairns, who said that when you look at the word
equip, there shall be an equipping in a warlike manner, or
that the vessel shall be equipped for war as that she shall
be ready to commit hostilities as soon as she leaves the
shores. The Attorney-General had said that if the holding
of the defendants were good, the Act was useless and might
be blotted from the statute book. By no means. There
were offences made by the Act which are well provided
against.

The Lord Chief Baron—Before the passing of this Act
there was no distinction between a gun and a ship. You
may now order a gun at Birmingham or anywhere else, and
say--" This is for one of the belligerents, to be taken to one
of their ports, to be sent on board of one of their ships, to
be expressly used for the purpose of war with those with
whom you are at peace." You may do it, and lam not
aware that you could not d• it with a ship. No doubt you
may order a gun for a ship. The statute makes that which
'was perfectly lawful before a crime and misdemeanour.
Mr. Kerslake proceeded to consider the summ4ng up of
the learned Lord Chief Baron, which was objected to on the
ground that it did not put to the jury the question of " at-
tempting or endeavouring" to commit the offence. It was
unfair on the part of the Crown, after resting the case upon
the principal charge, now to come forward and take excep-
tion to the direction of the learned judge. In common
fairness he thought he should have relied upon the first
eight counts.
Baron Bramwell asked what the learned counsel would
say of the ease of a person openly confessing that he was
building a ship for one of the belligerents, and fitting her
out with an innocent fitting with a view to enabling her to
go, say to the coast of Africa?
Mr. Karslake—l consider it is no more an offence than if
he had sent out the iron plating intended for the arming of
the ship, to some foreign port, to be fitted on there.
Baron Bramwell—You say it must be an immediate
armament to be an offence under the Act?
Mr. Karslake—Yes; you must not make one of the ports
of this country a port of departure for a warlike ship.
Baron Bramwell—But it may be said that you should
look not only at the immediate intent, but at the remote
intent—at all the intents intended to fellow.
Baron Pigott—l think that the section as to the forfei-
ture may inform us as to the intention of the Legislature. ft
says that breaking the law in the case forfeits the ship or
vessel with the tackle, together with all the arms, ammuni-
tion, or stores which may belong to her, or which may be on
board. The Act apparently contemplated that there may
be none on board.
Mr. Kerslake dissented from this.

Baron Bramwell—Supposing the armament were brought
down to the ship's side, it would not be on board. The
learned Baron did not think this was necessarily an argu.
ment against Mr. Kerslake.
Mr. Karslake—Looking at the whole of the section, the
object was apparently that the ports of the kingdom shall
not be made ports of departure for hostile purposes—a sta-
tion of hostilities, That view of the case is supported by
the nature of the occasion on which the Act was passed,
and by the whole history of legislation on the subject.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C., then followed on the same side. He
would not, after the exhaustive arguments of his learned
friends, occupy the court by a lengthy address. He held
that it was perfectly lawful under the Act forany one Know-
ingly to build a ship adapted for war, under a contract with
one of two belliOrents, and to deliver that ship, and to
equip that ship so far as necessary to enable it to sail away
to be delivered here or elsewhere to that belligerent in an
unharmed state.

At the conclusion of th© learned gentleman's argument,
The Attorney-General proceeded in reply, and was ad.
ressing the Court when their lordships rose.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HUDSON V. HUDSON.

This was a suit for judicial separation, by reason of the
husband's cruelty.
The marriage was solemnised in 1854, and there was a
settlement of £l,OOO upon the wife during her lifetime.
Shortly after marriage, according to the statement of the
learned counsel, the respondent became addicted to habits
of intemperance, and conducted himself in such a cruel
manner that she was compelled to leave him in 1862, since
which time there had been no cohabitation. The husband
denied the allegations contained in the petition.
Mrs. Jane Hudson said—l was married in the year 1854.
My father was a private gentleman, and my husband's
parents were independent people. My husband received
£l,OOO on that occasion, and we then went to live at Head-
corn, in Kent, at Coalbarn Farm, Barringdon. My hus-
band was very sober for more than 12 months, but after that
he became subject to intoxication, and threatened me. His
habits of drinking got worse, but we resided till 1859 in
Kent. On one occasion he drove me and my daughter to
Falerden. As we were returning he drove up a bank,
overturned the chaise, and we were all thrown out.
My husband said he was sorry my neck was not broke, as
he intended to do it. I was confined to bed for a week.
One night in the year 1862 he came home very late, and in
a state of intoxication, and said he would " do" for me, and
after that he told me to go out of the house or he would
kick me oat. On another occasion he came home in a
different kind of hat to that which he was in the habit of
wearing, and when I asked what had become of his hat, he
said that was his business, and then he threw a
bowl of cold water over me. Ho after that brought
two men of a low description home, and made me prepare
supper for them. They stayed till two o'clock in the
morning, and my husband slept in the chair till four o'clock.
I remained up all that time, and when he roused up a
little he became violent because I persuaded him to go to
bed. I was always afraid to go to bed when he was in-
toxicated. During one of the hop picking seasons in 1862,
which lasted three weeks, he was not sober for a single day.
I was finally compelled to leave him in October, 1862.
Cross-examined by Dr. Spiaks—l cannot recollect the
precise date when' left. I remained in the house about a
week after my husband brought the two men home to
supper. About that time Mr. Hudson was in difficulties, he
out,he was not hurt.
was losing money every day by the farm, and since
thesin chaise
Iliesfet
washim ulphseatvemhy sbehaardhad was thrownenhassoldthe
place.
but
When
I am certain he drove up the bank purposely. He said
after he had done so that he intended to break my neck,
and was sorry he had not done so. My husband did not
come daily to see me while I was confined to my bed. He
sent some wine, but nothing further. When he threw the
water over me he said nothing about washing his hands. I
never irritated my husband.

Mr. John Underhill, surgeon, said he met Mr. Hudson
after the accident referred to by Mrs. Hudson. I spoke to
him about it, and ha said, " Oh, my wife jawed me, so I
turned her over." (Laughter.) I afterwards attended Mrs.
Hudson, during which time her husband seemed in quite a
frenzied state. I told him if he kept on drinking he'd kill
himself. He said he would leave off, and a short time after
that I met him, when he told me he was drinking
nothing but toast and water. After Mr. Hudson had
thrown the water over his wife, I expostulated
with him, when he said. " Oh, it's all right, Doctor, when
you're married you'll find out all about it." (Laughter.)
On another occasion I met Mr. Hudson in a very excited
state. I asked him how he was, when he said he should
be all right if it was not for his wife. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined—l deliberately swear Mr. Hudson told
me he upset the chaise intentionally. I don't know that
Mrs. Hudson was in the habit of "jawing" her husband.
1 don't know that she " nagged" at him. She always ap-
peared very resigned.
Evidence having been given on the part of the respondent,
The Court took time to consider its decision.

The biddings for 50,00,000 rupees (£500,000) in
ee
eamt
etihael Bp
aarntki
uolfa rEs
:o—glTa nil de
ybieleitseordnelyn.diAa
eteoeoxkepdlaecr
proportions allotted were—to Calcutta, 26,00,000
rupees ; to Bombay, 22,00,000 rupees ; and
to Madras, 2,00,000 rupees. The minimum
price declared was, as before, is. 11d. per
rupee on Calcutta and Madras, and is 114 d on
Bombay. The applications within the limits
amounted to 170 lees. , Tenders on Calcutta at is
111 d will receive about 20 per cent. ; on Bombay
at 2s Old, about 50 per cent.; on Madras at is 113 d,
about 75 per cent.; and all above these rates in
full.
EDUCATION IN CANADA.—The annual report of
the chief superintendent of education shows an at-
tendance in 1862 at the public elementary schools of 343,733
pupils in Upper Canada, and 139,474 in Lower Canada.
Allowing for increase of population since the census, it is
considered that this amounts to about 22 per cent. of the
population of Upper. Canada, and about 11 per cent, in
Lower Canada,