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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDA Y EVENUNG, JULY 27, 1865.

96 18
131 133

A ei

62 t 6
16 17
91 93
109 111
44 49
8j

1301 1311
143 144
128 32

87 SO
651 651

64 66
45 47
45 48
105 106
1201 121
93 95
107 109
39 11
122 124
996 10.4'
06 57

137 1374
3 Itip
132 1324
100 1(2

53 54
24 :5
111 112

68 69
102& 104

31 34
- -P
10 11 p
121 123

1i 2 p
79 81
11i 12
150 155
55 $7

61 63
58 60
83} M
9- 10
158 159
3 4p
104 106

48 50

82 84

ISIONS.

57 59
1011 1021
p
ipf
41
ri 9;

99 101
70 75
100 102
1014 103.
1021 103 i
18 19

93 901
65 66
Si 60
571 59
50 52
45 44
43 45
27 a
26 27
1021 163
i
99 101

11i 12
sg 81,1
40 P 2
82 84

1 4d
1011 1024
05 97
8) 91

66 68

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. TILE
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 Milwaukio Rail-
way. 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 jn favour of the-claims of the bank. The
respondents moved either for a nonsuit or for a new trial,
on the ground of misdirection cf the learned judge who
tried the case. Booth the nonsuit and the new trial were
refused after lengthened arguments. The case then wont
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. Rolt, 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 Mr. Ragg, he 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 costa.
87BIGENBERG V. STEIGENBERG.

This was the suit of the wife for ta, 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 wero•fully proved, and
pronounced a decree nisi with costs.
This being the lea case on the list, the court adjourned
for the long vacation, which will terminate on tho 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 payperis 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 ho 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 was 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 RAILIVAT SHARES AND DIVIDENDS.-IMPORTANT

HOWARTH Y. 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 shads 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. Mgienzie said—lam the general 'manager of
the railway company, and Mr. Hielop 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 aro transferable by deed only. The
shares are £2O each.

Cross-examined—If 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 wero held,
Mr. James said ho 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 the verdict must be for the garnishees.
Verdict for the garnishees.

STIERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr, Commissioner Kerr.)
THE LAW AS TO TRADESMEN TRUSTING SINGLE WOMEN.-

JONES V. MARSDEN.
This was an action to recover for eggs, milk, and bread
supplied to a woman, who had stated herself to be Mrs.
Marsden.

Plaintiff stated that he supplied tho goods at a house in
which the defendant lived with a young woman. She
went by the name of Mrs Marsden. Plaintiff had seen de-
fendant, who promised to pay, but subsequently left the
house.

Defendant denied that he lived with the woman, though
he had apartments in the same house. Sho had never
passed as Mrs. Marsden, nor did defendant ever promise to
pay the money.
His Honour told plaintiff that he ought to be careful
and make inquiries before he trusted people.
plaintiff—l have subpoenaed the woman, and she is
here.
His Honour—Call her thon. A good-looking young
woman hero stepped into the box and was asked her name.
She replied, "I assume tho name of Mrs. Stuart."
His Honour—Well, did you order these goods ?
Witness—No. They wero ordered by Miss Bryant, of
whom we took the house.
His Honour—What became of them ?
Witness—They were consumed in the house.
His Honour—By whom ?
Witness—By the servants.
His Honour—Did you have any ?
Witness—I did. Mr. Marsden also had some.
His Honour—Then you ought to pay for them. Did
you pass as Mrs. Marsden ?
Witness—No. livas living with Mr. Marsden when the
goods were ordered.
His Honour—They must bo paid for. You and Mr.
Marsden have eaten and drank the plaintiff's goods.
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.

irstate
iE
CONVICT
both on Monday
P te IA R 1 . We understand that
this unhappy man was in an exceedingly subdued
andcollected
and on Tuesday morn-
ings, During both nights his sleep was quite undisturbed.
On Monday ho was visited by the Rev. J. Watson Reid, of
Christ's Church, and on Tuesday by the Rev. Dr. Norman
Macleod. The Rev. Mr. Doran, prison chaplain, has also
i
frequently conducted devotional exercises with the prisoner.
Dr. Pritchard has not again been visited by any of his rela-
tions, nor is it likely, we are informed, that any further in -
terview on their part will be sought. On Monday, how -
ever, ho was occupied for a considerable time in writing
farewell letters to his daughter, brother, and the other
members of his family.—Glasgow Evening Citizen.
The Nazione of the 23d announces the arrival ins
Florence of Lord Westbury, the late Lord Chancellor.