The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-15 00:00:00

SUN, LO i 1 FEIDA EN/MANG, SEPTEMBIji 15,

GARNISHEES.

P.RITIS II P

100
100
100
100
ICO

OSSE

i 0
Ail
100
11(r0
2
100
100

,NMEN

1?.0
100
100
1 0
100
100

93 15
139 136 k

5 6

V 7
7t 73

111 113
98 49
7 8

133 135
151 152
120 129

91 93
66i 67

64 65
45 47
38 42
to 107
120/ 121;
85 91
103 105
3 40
124 125
97 OS
18 bB3

1381 1391
3 p
1211 128.1
98 10

62 63
'7 )9
1101 111

es B'J
103 104

361 3711

,SIONS.

56 58
101 102
pr 4p
4 44
0 10

99 101
70 78
100 102
1014 102 i
1031 1044
iP
174 18

F.B 90
64 65
5i 6O
55 57
50 52
4! 45
38 42
26 18
25 17
104 104 k
JP

1 fi) I
100 101 1

12; 13;
8; 7id
:2 H
83

1
1001 1011
94 96
69 92

61 66

82 81
100 101
100 101

4 i(
too 101

T SECU.

97 98
95 97
98 100
84 855
82 S 4
103 105
106 108
108 110
106 108
-104
109 111

IC3 105
107 100
107 109
102 104
96 98
9.) 101
93 95
AO 01
103 105
85 80

98 100
102 103

49i i 9

15 2

64 5; OR

00 i
10 i

11 I
97
582 9

I39iiiii

usi

62j 3}

111 i

LORI

816 f 6

101} 4

131
lli I

1011 1002

,ITIES.

1021

Mk

LAW INTELLIGENCE—ThiE Day.

--t S.---

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder and a Common Jury.

IMPORTANT ATTACHMENT CASE.-ROWARTII V. HISLOP.-
THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF PORTUGAL,

This was an attachment case of very great importance
to shateholders in railway companies, plaintiff seeking to
attach certain dividends alleged to be due to the defendant
as a shareholder in the South-Eastern Railway Company
of Portugal.

Mr. Talfourd Salter appeared for the company, Mr. Phil,
brick representing the plaintiff.

It appeared that the defendant was a bolder of certain
bonds which had been issued, and it was set up on the
part of the plaintiff that the company had £2lO in hand to
the use of the defendant.

Mr Mackenzie, the secretary to the company, was called,
and stated that there was money in the Bank to the credit
of the defendant.

Ms Lordship asked if there was any answer as to £2lO ?

Mr. Salter said there was a special arrangement between
defendant and the company, under which the defendant
had to surrender certain shares and receive bonds. Now
the question was whether it could be said that so long as
the arrangement was not carried out defendant was entitled
td interest On the bonds.

His Lordship Was of opinion that if the arrangement
were not carried out defendant would still be entitled to
the shares.

Mr. Salter thought that if the defendant broke his agree-
ment with the company it was clear ho had forfeited all
claim to the dividends.

His Lordship did not see that defendant forfeited past
'dividends and interest, whatever might be the case as to
those forthcoming. There was no answer as to £2lO, and
the jury would find a verdict for that amount.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £2lO.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Gibbons.)

FAMILY DEEDS OF COMPOSITION.-IMPORTANT DECISION.-
INGLR Y. GREEN AND STANSBY.

This was a judgment summons, plaintiff suing a trades-
man of the City and defendant's agents, formerly of the
Poultry.
A clerk from the office of Mr. Chidley attended, on behalf
of the defendant, and stated that they had executed a deed
of composition.
His Honour—Have you the deed with you ?
Clerk—No, sir ; but I have a copy, and the deed is duly
registered.

The copy of the deed was handed up to his Honour, who
asked plaintiff if he had called upon Mr. James Rawlings,
whose name was on tho deed as trustee to the estato ?

Plaintiff—l know nothing of James Rawlings.
His Honour (to defendant's representative)—Have you
tendered plaintiff the composition duo under this deed ?
Clerk—Not that I know of ; but the case only came into
the office a short time ago. _ _ _

His Honour, after perusing the deed, said I do not like
the look of this deed at all. Hero are three Greens and
two Rawlings. You know this does not look like agenuine
document. I find that the Greens and Rawlings figure in
this deed for very large Sums. Here is one Green down
for 4000. Why, this appears to be quite a family
arrangement. Here is a Stansby down for £7BO and a
Rawlings for £4OO. _

Clerk—Your Honour must remember that this deed has
been duly considered in the Court of Bankruptcy.
His Honour—l am quite sure that the Court of Bank-
ruptcy does not go into all these matters.
Clerk—Will you grant an adjournment ?
His Honour—Oh no. This is not the kind of case in
which I should feel at all inclined to grant an adjourn-
ment. Here I find a deed which is evidently a family
arrangement, and in which claims to the amount of
£lO,OOO are inserted by the Greens, 6tanbys, and Raw-
lings. I shall commit the defendants for ten days, leaving
them to their remedy elsewhere.
Committed for ten days.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE " BLOCKADE "—FURIOUS DEIVING.—William Thos.
Walker, cab-driver, badge 15,050, was charged before Mr.
Knox with being drunk and furiously driving a horse at-
tached to a Ransom cab, in Coventry-street.

Austin, 336 A, proved seeing the defendant, who was
drunk, driving a horse attached to a cab along Coventry-
street, about two o'clock this morning. The defendant
was galloping his horse, and flogging it at the same time.
A constable was placed at the end of Oxenden-street to
carry out the orders of the commissioners of police prohi-
biting empty tabs passing into the Haymarket between
twelve and two, and the defendant, to avoid being stopped,
had, near Leicester-square, taken up one of the low fellows
who hang about the Haymarket. On the defendant reach-
ing the White Bear Tavern, in Piccadilly, the pretended
fare jumped out and ran away.

Mr. Knox said he supposed the defendant was trying to
force what was called the " blockade."
Austin said that was the eatio-.

The defendant said he was not galloping his horse, and
could not do so in such a place as Coventry-street, and at
such a time.

Mr. Knox said he did not believe the defendant could
gallop his horse in such a place, but ho might drive at such
a rate that he might drive over any oue. Two months
ago a man was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of
manslaughter, and he believed sentenced to a long term
of imprisonment for killing a man through driving like the
defendant had done. Ho (the magistrate) was bound to
protect tho public, and not to have persons placed in
danger. He should fine the defendant 20s. ; or, in default,
14 days' imprisonment.