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

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

ISIONS.

67 59
101} 102,
pr fi
4f 41

99 101
70 75
100 102
10Li 103 i
102 i 1031
*
18 19

90
65 66
5i 60
571 58i
50 52
45 48
43 45
27 18
26 27
1021 103 k
P
P

99 101

11i 12
81 814
,0 112
82 64

1 44
101} 1024
95 97
83 91

e.:l 68

3 5

82 84
100 101
100 101

i l
LOO 101
92 94

SECUP.:

97 99
99 101
gi 100
83} 814
82 84
101 103
105 107
106 1(8
108 110
102 104
108 110

102 104
104 106
106 108
102 104
96 98
9! 101
92 94
90 91
102 104
83 85

101 f 21 f

103 }

26
1021 31

101)

IT! ES.

8343

98 100
102 104

105 107

901 I i

81 i

33} i

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 caso, 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 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 in 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. Both the nousuit 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, hold 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 severa:
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 got
her something to eat, and ho 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 ho 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 beershop 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.

Tho learned Judge mado a decree nisi, with costs.
STEIGENBERG V. STEIGENBERG.

This was the suit of tho 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 laEt 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 tonna 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
unt rue.

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
ion 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 SHARES AND DIVIDENDS.-IMPORTANT

HOWARTH V. HISLOP.—THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, LIMITED (GARNISHEES).
Mr. Henry James appeared for tho 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 wore
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—I am the general 'manager of
the railway company, and Mr. Hislop holds 300 A Cale-
donian Shares, and 800 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 bo 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, 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 the verdict must be for the garnishees.
Verdict for the garnishees.

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

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

Plaintiff stated that he supplied the 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.

Defendantelenied that he lived with the woman, though
he had apartments in the same house. She had never
passed as Mrs. Marsden, nor did defendant over promise to
pay the money.
His Honour told plaintiff that he ought to be careful
and wake inquiries before he trusted people.
Plaintiff—l have subpoenaed the woman, and she is
hero.
His Honour—Call her then. A good-looking young
woman here stepped into the box and was asked her name.
She replied, "I assume the name of Mrs. Stuart."
His Ilonour— Well, did you order these goods ?
Witness—No. They were 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—l did. Mr. Marsden also had some.
His Honour—Then you ought to pay for them. Did
you pass as Mrs. Marsden ?
Witness—No. I was living with Mr. Marsden when the
goods were ordered.
His Honour—They must be paid for. You and Mr.
Marsden have eaten and drank the plaintiff's goods,
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs,

THE CONVICT PRITCHARD.—We understand that
this unhappy man was in an exceedingly subdued
and collected state both on Monday and on Tuesday morn-
ings, During both nights his sleep was quite undisturbed.
On Monday he was visited by the Rev. J. Watson Reid, of
Christ's Church, and on Tuesday by the Rev. Dr. Norman
Macleod. Tho Rev. Mr. Doran, prison chaplain, has also
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 in
Florence of Lord Westbury, the late Lord Chancellor.