The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 27, 1865.

100
100
100
100
100

3 _5

82 84
100 101
100 10.1

too lu 1
92 94

'T S ECU

97 99
99 101
04 100
E3l 811
S 2 S 4
101 IG3
105 107
106 1. S
108 110
102 104
108 110

102 104
104 tO6
106 108
102 104
96 98
91 101
92 94
£0 91
102 104
83 85

481 8

1061 6
1211 21 12
iooi 99
54

[si
!31f, 6
31 }
1 1311

79i 80

1011 21

1(3 i

26}
1021 31

ITIES.

831 41

9011

CASE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL.
(Present—Lord Chelmsford, Lord Justice Knight Bruce,
and Lord Justice Turner.)

THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF CANADA (APPELLANTS) V. THE
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF CANADA (RESPONDENTS).

Lord Chelmsford delivered judgment in this case, which
has for some time past been before the courts of law, and
excited much interest in commercial circles. It appeared
that there had been a claim for $945,000 on the part of the
bank arising out of negotiations between the Great Western
Railway of Canada and the Detroit and Milwaukie
When the case was before the Court of Queen's
Bench a series of questions were put to the jury, who re-
turned a verdict in favour of the claims of the bank. The
respondents moved either fora nonsuit or for a new trial,
on the ground of misdirection cf the learned judge who
tried the case. Both the nonsuit and the new trial were
refused after lengthened arguments. The case then went
to the Court of Error, and their lordships overruling the
decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, a new trial was
ordered. Lord Chelmsford, on the part of the Judicial
Committee, held that the decision of the Court of Error
was right, and stated that their lordships, would, conse-
quently, advise her Majesty to dismiss the appeal, with
costs as against the appellants.
Their lordships then proceeded to hear an appeal (God-
fray v. Goodfray) from Jersey, in which the Attorney-
General, Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. bolt, Q.C., and several
other counsel are engaged. It is likely to last some days.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
THOMPSON V. THOMPSON.

This was the petition of Olive Thompson, praying for
a dissolution of her marriage with her husband, on the
ground of adultery and desertion.
From the evidence it *appeared that the parties were
married in 1856, and cohabited at Cross Pool Cottages,
Sheffield, until February, 1861. On the morning of that
day the respondent told his wife that he was going to get
her something to eat, and he left the house, but did not
return. Since that time he had not lived with his wife,
or contributed anything to her support, and she was de-
pendent upon her family. There was one child living, and
it was stated that the respondent could earn good wages,
but that he was most intemperate in his habits. After
deserting his wife he took lodgings at the house of a per-
son named Ragg, who kept a beorshop at some distance
from Sheffield, and formed an improper intimacy with his
wife. This being discovered by ALr. Ragg, ho turned them
out of the house, and they had been since living as man
and wife at a place about two miles from Sheffield.
The learned Judge made a decree nisi, with costs.
STEIGENBERG V. STEIGENBERG.

This was the suit of the wife for a dissolution of marriage
by reason of her husband's adultery with his own sister,
coupled with desertion, and there was no defence.
Some witnesses, including the mother of the respondent,
the sister of the petitioner, and some of the children, were
examined, and proved that the parties were married at
Geelong, in Australia, in 1849. They resided at different
places in Australia, after which they came to England in
1861, and remained for some time at his mother's, at Heston,
near Hounslow. There he formed the incestuous inter-
course with his sister Emily, who had between £2,000 and
£3,000 property in her own right, and they went away to-
gether. The respondent afterwards purchased a book
business at Epsom, and he and his sister lived there as man
and wife, but his habits were so intemperate that he was
unable to attend to his customers, and they removed to
Homerton, and other parts of the metropolis. There were
four children, issue of the marriage, and two of the adul-
terous connection, and all the children were living in the
same house.

The learned Judge said the facts were fully proved, and
pronounced a decree nisi with costs.
This being the hut case on the list, the court adjourned
for the long vacation, which will terminate on the 2nd of
November.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Registrar Winslow.)
IN RE SIR ROBERT NICHOLSON, BART
This bankrupt was described as of various places, and a
prisoner for debt. The debts are stated to be £l7OO, and
to-day bankrupt applied to be released from custody.
After a long examination, Mr. Sargood said it was clear
the bankrupt had omitted to insert various debts in his
petition, and it must be dismissed.
Mr. Bagley said perhaps the petition might be amended.
This was a petition in forma pauperis, and it could not do
any good to dismiss it.
Mr. Sargood said if the bankrupt came to this court
again in forma pauperis the learned counsel should have
something to say to it.
His Honour dismissed the petition as the accounts were
untrue.
Mr. Sargood and Mr. Bagley complained of the improper
conduct of some person who had written to Sir R. Nichol-
son, Bart., in person threatening him because he was not
employed to conduct the bankruptcy. It further transpired
that letters were addressed to this court to the care of
" Custodian."
Mr. Sargood said it wag a species of ruffianly intimida-
tion that ought to be stopped.
His Honour said inquiries should certainly be made.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
• (Before the Recorder and a Common Jury.)
ATTACHING RAILWAY SHAMS AND DIVIDENDS.-IMPORTANT

HOWARTH V. HISLOP.-THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY, LIMITED (GARNISHEES).
Mr. Henry James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Talfourd Salter for the garnishees.
Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the present
question was one of very considerable importance, and
would resolve itself into a point of law rather for his lord-
ship than the jury. The defendant, Mr. Hislop, was a
shareholder in the railway company, and the question now
would be whether such shares could be attached in this
country under the circumstances in which the parties were
placed. The fact of the possession of the shares would
be proved, and then the learned counsel would submit that
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.

Mr. W. S. Maenzie said—l am the general 'manager of
the railway company, and Mr. Hislop holds 300 A Cale-
donian Shares, and 300 B. The railway company is con-
stituted in England under the Limited Liability Act.
Class B shareholders have been receiving 7 per cent. divi-
dend. The shares are transferable by deed only. The
shares are £2O each.

Cross-examined—lf defendant continues to hold the
shares the dividends will accumulate. I do not know if
he has received the December dividend.
Mr. Chambers said he was the late secretary of the com-
pany, and he knew that defendant had received the De-
cember dividend. There had been no dividend declared
since December.

There appeared to be some difficulty in the way of prov-
ing that the company hold any money to the credit of the
defendant ; and, after some discussion as to the mode in
which the shares were held,
Mr. James said he could not carry the case any further,
and

His Lordship ruled that it had not been shown that
the company had any money belonging to the defendant,
and therefore tho verdict must be for tho garnishees.
Verdict for the garnishees.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(B efore Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
THE LAW AS TO TRADESMEN TRUSTING SINGLE WOMEN.-