The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-10 00:00:00

SATURDAY MORN lIN 6, JULY 102 1847.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUERNS BENCH, July 8.
;Sittings at Nisi Prius, Guildhall, before Lord Chief
Justice DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
FISHER V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE
COMPANY.

Mr. Watson, Q.C. (with whom were Mr. Phinn and
Mr. Rew), appeared for the plaintiff, who declared on
two time policies, ono from the Bth of June, 1842, for 12
months, and the other from the Bth of June, 1843., for 12
months, by each of which a vessel called the Mary Wal-
laby was assured at a sum of 3,000/. On the first po-
licy the demand was for an average loss, and on the se-
cond for a total loss. The vessel was commanded by
the plaintiff, who was the owner, and sailed from the
Mauritius to trade in the Persian Gulf, and part of the
cargo was insured as specie to a considerable amount
to certain underwriters in India. When the vessel was
in the Indian Sea, and on the sth of June, 1843, a storm
came on, and she suffered considerable damage. Or.
the 25th of June, however, she arrived at Muscat, and
was repaired. On the 14th of July' the plaintiff sailed
from Muscat for Bunder-Abbas, in the Persian Gulf;
and while between the island of Ormuz and Builder-
Abbas, was overtaken by another storm, by which the
vessel was eventually driven ashore, and sustained fur-
ther damage. This induced the plaintiff to abandon her.
As soon as the vessel had struck, two boxes containing
the insured specie were brought up from a part of the
ship called the lazaret, and placed in a spot convenient
for removal. By the next morning the two boxes had dis-
appeared, and had, it was stated by the plaintiff, been
stolen by Arab wreckers. Actions for the amount had
been commenced against the underwriters in India.

Evidence was then given, chiefly documentary, in sup-
port of the plaintiff's case.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Martin, Q.C., Sir John Bayley,
and Mr. Bovill appeared for the defendants, who had
pleaded that they had not broken their covenants.
The Learned Counsel then opened a defence, which in
substance amounted to a charge that the Mary Mallaby
had been unnecessarily and fraudulently abandoned for
the purpose of obtaining the amount of the insurance on
her and the specie; that the vessel had not any specie on
board, for two boxes, believed by one of the crew to be
the same as those placed in the Mary Mallaby as con-
taining specie, had been found in the Persian Gulf, near
a lost anchor of the Mary Mallaby; and on being opened
on board her Majesty's ship Clio, were found to contain
only the metallic dross of the island of Ormuz. The
Learned Counsel then stated that the Mary Mallaby,
having been sold for 2401., was repaired at Muscat, and
afterwards put to sea ; and though eventually lost at
Madagascar, had proved seaworthy for 25 days, which
would have sufficed to take her to Bombay. If the
vessel had been take❑ to Bombay, it might have under-
gone a thorough repair at that place ; but the plaintiff'
had refused the offer which had been made to him by
Commodore Porter, of her Majesty's ship Euphrate,, to
get her off the beach, saying that he would sell her for
the benefit of the underwriters.
The boxes were produced in Court, and were found
to contain stones of great weight, of the colour of
copper.
Commodore Porter and Lieutenant Foullerton were
also examined in support of the defendant's case; and,
after the reading of an immense mass of documentary
evidence, which protracted the trial to a late hour,
Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence, and
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
July 9.
(Sittings in Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN.)
COLLETT U. CURLING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a milliner.
in Waterloo-place, to recover from the defendant a sum
of 1801. for rent of rooms occupied by him as offices.
Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Yardley appeared for the
plaintiff, Mr. Humfrey for the defendant.
The case had been marked as a special jury one by
the defendant, but no special jury having been struck by
him, it was tried by a common jury.
It appeared that in March, 1844, defendant agreed to
rent for the term of the plaintiff's interest in the pre-
mises, 4, Waterloo-place, certain rooms for offices; that
he himself drew up an agreement, which plaintiff signed,
and that having entered upon, and occupied the premises
up to September, 1846, when the interest of the plaintiff
ceased, he had never paid one farthing of rent. By the
terms of the agreement, plaintiff could only claim rent
yearly, and in this action, although brought for one
year and a half, plaintiff on►y sought a verdict for
120/., and would be compelled to bring a fresh action
for the second year's rent.
Sir F. THERIGER commented in very severe terms
on the conduct of the defendant, and having proved his
Case, _ _

The jury at once gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
—Jwigment immediately.
We recommend ladies who have apartments to let,
not to sign agreements drawn up by any lawyer seeking
to become a tenant, unless seen by their own solicitor—
let them remember " Collett v. Curling."
The other special jury cases not being ready the Court
rose, and the City sitting terminated.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
POWELL v. BRADBURY AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins (with whom were Mr. Huddle-
ston and Mr. H. Hill) conducted the case for the plain-
tiff; and the Attorney-General (with Mr. Wells) ap-
peared for the defendants.
The plaintiff had been engaged as one of the sub
editors of the Daily News la,wspaper for two years,
from December 20, 1645, at a salary of 154 a week ;
and the present action was brought against the defen-
dants as representing the proprietors of that paper, to
recover damages for the dismissal of the plaintiff trim
the establishment, without any reasonable cause, before
the expiration of the period for which he was so en-
gaged. The defendants had pleaded—first, a denial
that they made the contract ; secondly, a denial
that the plaintiff was dismissed without reason-
able cause ; and, lastly, a plea of justification for
the dismissal, on the ground that the plaintiff; whilst
sub-editor, had, at the request of one William Alfred
Wearing, who was also employed on the Daily
News, written to the correspondent of the paper at Bris-
nil for a report of the proceedings in the Bankrupt
Court there in the matter of one William Henry Smith,
a bankrupt, the plaintiff at the time well knowiaz that
a personal hostility existed between Wearing and Smith.
The plea then stated that a report of the proceedings was
sent up from Bristol, and also that Smith wrote a letter
to the proprietors of the Daily A ews, stating that Wear
ing had boasted he would publish an account of Smith's
difficulties, and asking the proprietors not to allow the
newspaper to be used for such an object. The plea fur-
ther stated that the plaintiff delivered this letter with
the report to Wearing, and permitted him to take away
the letter tlnd prevent its coming to the knowledge of
the proprietors, and in abuse of his employment suffered
a garbled and unfair abridgment of the report, prepared
by Wearing, to be inserted in the paper. It appeared
as engaged on the paper to re•
sub-editor, was was personally hostile to Mr.
examined in the Bristol Bankrte t
Smith,
hititeti t
underhlli the.
Comm and that the plaintiff had, at the request of Wear-
ing, written to the correspondent of the Daily News at
Bristol, requesting his attendance at the Court there
when the proceedings in the matter of Smith should come
on, and to send up a fair report of such proceeding:. The
report was accordingly sent up on the 4th of August,
1846. On the same day Smith wrote a letter addressed
" I nave discovered that Mr. W. A. Wearing, the
person whose name is disreputably associated with the
s to
a thec oppyro splietor of the Daily news, of which the follow-
accompanying memorial, addressed the editors of the
several Bristol newspapers for the purpose of inducing
then to report the proceedings in my case, which was
brought before the Court of Bankruptcy on Monday.
He has also boasted that, 43 editor of the Daily News.
he will publish in extenso the account of my pecuniary
difficulties, not only in the Daily News, but in other
London papers with which he has influence. I feel
confident that you will not, by your permission, assist a
private and vindictive object by unreasonably and
givinguntie-
trict publicity to proceedings which took
court of bankruptcy, and which,
involving no point of public interest or justice, can have
no additional pain and
r
jnuiatrttych er effect
nwho
to
a m
position in w
place
eriliyn
adis
On and unavoidable
circumstances have placed him.7,
On the other side of the paper which contained this letter
a than that
which
iacsh of
hpmerg addings
esuuffied from the unfor-
tunate
was a printed memorial by Smith to the benchers of the
Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn, reflecting en the charac-
ter of Mr. Wearing. The Beuchers, however, had sub-
sequently dismissed this memorial, and called Mr.
Wearing to the bar. The plaintiff as sub-editor opened
this letter, and handed it over, together with the report,
to be abridged, to Wearing, who afterwards took awn)
the letter. The report as abridged was inset ted in the
Daily News, and seemed to have been fairly abridged,
omitting nothing in favour of Smith, with the exception
of so much as had reference to Wearing himself, being
that part in which the bankrupt complained of the con-
duct of his detaining creditor, Wearing.
Mr. John Dicken s was examined, and proved the
agreement, and
Messrs. Hodgkin,
Beard, and Black, described the
M`Diarrnid, Bunt', Griffin,
Moran, Morgan, Serle,Soutar,
duties and authorities of sub-editor. lii their opinion,
on his becoming
aware of the examination of the bank-
rupt at Bristol, if he considered it an important matter,
it was his duty to write to the correspondent at Bristol
tor a report. A sub-editor had authority to open all
' communications, whether they were addressed to the
proprietors or not, he being, in his office, the representa-
tive of the proprietors. They did not consider it the
duty of Mr. Powell to have forwarded the letters in
question to the defendants, although some of the wit-
nesses thought they should have done so.
Mr. John GoverPowell, the Bristol correspondent of
the limes, stated that he was present at the examination
of Smith, on the 4th August last, and sent a report up
to his paper. The report in the Daily News was much
condensed, but he did not consider it garbled. There
were matters making against the bankrupt, and also cir-
cumstances in his favour, which were omitted.
The ATTORNEY-IiENERAL contended that the plaintiff
ought not,
111 common prudence and honour, to have
handed this report and letter to Wearing, whom he knew
was personally the hostile creditor of Smith, and that
after tau proprietot s became acquainted with this, they
had no other course to pursue than that of dismissing
the plaintiff as they
did; for if it became known that the
,
paper might be used as a means of gratifying personal
malice, it would be highly injurious to its character.g
witnesses.—
He then called the folloWin • '
Mr. George Powell
the tortes p
News, at Bristol, who sent up the report in question,
was examined, and stated that he received a letter rrem
Mr. Powell, ondent of the Daily
requesting hun to attend to the examination
of Mr. Smith, which it termed " a case of some impor-
tance, In which a gentleman in our establishment is
concerned," and concluded by requesting " a fair re-
port of the proceedings." Previous to the day of hear-
ing he received another letter, reminding him of the
subject, and he attended, and seat up his report.

Mr. Dilk, the manager of the Daily News, proved
that he investigated the matter. He had an interview
with Mr. Powell and Mr.'Wearing, in the presence of the
editor, in his room. 'Witness asked the plaintiff if he
knew of a feeling of hostility between Wearing and Smith,
and he acknowledged he did. He said he had written
for the report. Witness then asked the plaintiff if he
had received any letter from Smith? Mr. ;Wearing
answered the question. He said there was n• letter re-
ceived, there was a printed statement. Witness appealed
to Powell, and he said there was a letter; he had given
it to Wearing, and Wearing acknowledged that he had
taken it home, and went and fetched it.
Cross-examined—When he was appointed manager,
his instructiocs were not to reduce the expenditure. His
opinion was, that at first he rather increased it; but it
wis subsequently reduced, particularly by publishing a
single sheet. He did not know Count D'Orsay was ever
a contributor. Mr. Foublanque, Mr. Fox, Mr. Scott
Russell, and Mr. Costello had contributed much; they
had now retired. Mr. Wills had succeeded Mr. Powell
at a less salary. There was a gentleman named Elliott
on the Express. He was a brother•in-law of Mr. Smhh's.

Mr. John Foster, the editor, gave similar testimony to
that given by the last witness, as to the investigation.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS having made a very eloquent
speech in reply.
His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence to the jury,
saying, tht question was in what respect the plaintiff had
fail d in the discharge of his duty as sub-editor. The
proprietors considered that the sub-editor ought to see
that nothing was done calculated to reflect on the cha-
racter of the paper. No complaint was made that the
letter had been opened by the plaintiff, but that he had
*aft red it to be taken away so as to prevent its coming
to the knowledge of the proprietors. The question es
to whether the plaintiff had so acted improperly was for
the jury to determine. They were to consider whether
it was not a report of a case which would not have been
published unless it had interested some person connected
with the paper. Supposing it should be considered one
fit for publication, then was the report a garbled and
unfair report? His Lordship said that it did not appear
to him to be an unfair account of the proceedings as
abridged. The jury were directed to say whether, in
the language of the second el ea , there was reasonable
cause for dismissing the plaintiff, and whether, in the
language of the third plea, the matters therein alleged
had beensubstantially proved. His Lordship also wished
the jury to say whether in their opinion the report as
published was a garbled one or not, in order to assist the
Court in case of its being necessary to go before it here-
after on the pleadings. With respect to the damages,
the plaintiff was entitled to be indemnified for his loss if
the defendants had not made out a reasonable ground
for the dismissal.

The jury having retired for an hour and twenty-five
minutes, returned a verdict tor the plaintiff—Damages,
5001., and stated that they found the report was not a
garbled report.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

(Before Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Justice MAULE).
Charles Pollard was placed in the dock this morning,
charged with stealing two bills for 1,0001. each, the ac-
ceptances of the Prince Napoleon Louis Bonaparte.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted, and Mr.
Humphries, Q.C., and air. Russell were retained for the
defence.

The facts of this case have been so lately detailed in
the columns of The Sun that it is not necessary to give
the evidence at length.

It appeared that' the prisoner, hearing that the Prince
was in want of money, introduced himself, on the
11th of June, as a man of business, who was in the halyt
of procuring money for noblemen, and said he would
readily lend the prosecutor 3,0001. or 4,0001, and only
charge 51 per cent. By appointinew he returned ou the
14th current, and produced for the acceptance of the
Prii,ce two bills at two months' date, for 1,0001. each.
The Prince accepted the bills, and the prisoner signed
his own name as drawer, adding that he had now made
himself responsible it the rince did not meet them
when due. When the Prince told him that he would
riot consent to the bills leaving nis hinds, the prisoner
said they would certainly remain in his strong box till
due. He then lett, promising to bring the money on the
morrow ; on the morrow, however, he returned with tin
apology, btr, not the money, and wrote some gibberish,
neither English nor French, which the Prince could not
understand, and therefore the latter drew out a form in
English, acknowledging the receipt of two " cheques"
for 1,0001. each, and promising the money on the 16th
at the latest. ..The.prispner.copied this receipt with this
mistake as to. the proper word to describe the instru-
ments, and signed it, an ,1 was not seen again till he was
in custody. lie, however, wrote the Prince on the 16th
that business compelled him to leave town, and he could
not see him with the money. On the 26th he called un
Mr. Alexander Symmons, wine merchant, and endea-
voured to get one of the bills discounted at 10 per cent.,
the bill at the time being said to be in favour of a silver-
smith in the Strand.

Ml'. HUMP/IMES, for the prisoner, argued that the
crime of larceny had not been established, for the Prince
had had no property or possession of the bill. lie had
it in his hands merely fur the purpose of acceptihg it,
and no more.
Baron ALDERSON said there could be no doubt of the
Prince's property in the bill. But the question for the
other side was whether the Prince had parted with that
property.
Mr. CLARKSON submitted that the prisoner was to be
in possession of the bill till it was due, and that it was
for the jury to say whether the proceedings origin:kted
from an intent to defraud; for it so the case laid in
the indictment was proved.
Baron ALDERSON said there could be no doubt of
the fraudulent intent of the p,irty; but the books said
that the fraudulent intent of the party was immat, rial.
The Prince, supposing he was dealing with a respectable
roan, imprudently parted with his property in the bill.
He was sorry for it; but, as the law stood, he must uirect
the jury to find a verdict of aNlittal.
The jury then returned their verdict, and the prisoner
left the dock.

POLIuE INTELLiciENCE.
MANSION fsOUSE.
William Simeon Oppenheim, of Great Synagogue
House, was summoned by ;he churchwardens and over-
seers of the parish of St. James's, Duke's-place, for two
pours'-rates, to the amount of 201. Bs. 4d.
Mr. Blatchford, the vestry-clerk, appeared to support
the rate ; Mr. Atkinson, of the bar, attended for the de-
fendant.
The vestry clerk said it must not be supposed that he
appeared with any hostile feeling in the case. It the
Lord Mayor entertained the opinion that the whole of
buildings rated were used solely for religious purposes,
the exemption from the poors'-rate and tl-e church-rate
would be immediately and most williegly re .ognised. It',
however, the whole, or part of one of the buildings
were appropriated to other purposes, in fairnes, to the
other parishioners, it became the duty of the authorities
to rate the inhabitants in proportion. To esta-
blish his claim to exemption, it would be necessary
that the buildings should be entirely appropriated tv
ec.jlesiastical purposes, and that they should be certi-
ficated. The buildings consisted of the great synagogue,
'which he believed was certificated, and another build-
ing of inferior dimensions, but whether such process was
extended to the latter he was nit prepsred to state, and
he submitted that the onus probandi lay upon the de•
•endant, in answer to the chilli to show that there wa,
no appropriation of the buildings to any other than re-
ligious purposes.
Mr. Atkinson contended that the onus probandi
upon the par ichial awhorities.
Tne LORD MAY lit decided upon that p int in favour
of the latter.
All the preliminary matters connected with the ques-
tion were then waived, and that of liability was -tee
only one in which his Lordship's decision was called for.
Mr. Atkinson then pn.ceeded to argue that the se-
cond builiting had unquestionable claims to exemption
from the rates, and described the several rooms as it
was afterwards stated in writing, to be used upon occa-
sions connected with the religious observances of the
Jews. On one of the floors, however, he admitted that
a person resided, but he merely kept the keys, and was
allowed upon the premises by sufferance, and without
having any clerical connexion with the great synagogue
which the Learned Counsel contended embraced every
part of the two buildings in its designation. He obe.
jeeted to the at.empt to make Mr. Oppenheim, who
merely attended to superintend the distribution of the
charities, liable.
Mr. Blatchford said the summons had been servtd
upon Mr•Oppenheim, as secretary to the very respect.
able b ,dy, who presided, in order to prevent unneces-
sary trouble.
Mr. Atkinson then proposed to call Mr. Oppenheim
to give evidence, but
The LORD MAYOR said he was willing to hear that
gentleman's testimony, but could nut allow him to be
sworn, as he was the only defendant before the Court.
Mr. Atkinson said he should call other evidence.
Mr. Lewis Jacobs, a member of the great synagogue,
t
St. James's, Duke's place,
nsaytdarenni:p,
taeteivaugdti deposed
dggofdswoouchtrtehtothoohenv
were
%srlev2wt:earslhestodt
wl(e•tiittptlsdahw.
etesgeroArairarisbneeor(ud)ac.nrtton
iGsie.ovytoeenler( ,crrodeo,every
syna-
gogue was a building by itself and used only for reli-
ous worship. There was another building attached to it;
the ground floor was used for keeping the sacerdotal
robes and distributing alms to the poor. The first
fluor was partly used as a vestry, and in it once
a montn charity was dispensed to the respectable poor
of the Jews, and Mr. Oppenheim sometimes sat there.
The third floor was used as a synagogue, with all the
paraphernalia kept there, in the wanner of the great
roomse
sn
tyhen synagogue,
occupied
pdai
eisididd side
by Mr.
y
t
upon sufferance, wituahlh:aolwagtutirdeeeruthehhirge and having nothing to
keysd
i
do with
ot hf
thet e
greatgreat
ysep,dyioeetodi•isdnnsannaaggrti"guoedistl,
goseeghudueet
w.et.
00 parts.
tlrher
te.
sw.
consideredßphauo Barnett
building
hk eoe t thewas
whichtha
r
s
pcmot
Good-
man, nitrmo; charity,tut.
hn
tei
Blatchfordha: communication
ht
distinctly:itoe wenil.
ol
ebsali
showed
set
Lu:t,sukiwha•
synagogue, t hs,
hiecdcrtaehamn tuaceet
en.
ty
there de r partsf
rel_
tmgochitaet.(3.;li'alnitis'nth'redie.cen‘ ivAgibLtenhutrrOl)kilßidbi leDgtiuxshnr:Melegedra fromliaAigitpiBirgiUtles°:bacß't washe
nnameroom and
in
Barnett, in certain rooms in the second lcpl'ha)niembt hhuceeila) udprialdnrgtbe,evoihfmde:Aiddrierd:
nut know the strength of the case, which tie now con-
sidered to be irrestible.
The LORD MAYOR, in order to set the question at rest,
went to the synagogue to examine an parts of it, and
then decided in favour of the rate to the extent of 501.
per annum, which his Lordship directed should be as
sessed upon the apartments occupied by Air. Barnett.
MARLBOROUGH S7REET.
James Horner, a well-known thief; was placed before
Mr. Hard wick, charged with picking a lady s pocket of a
purse, containing two sovereigns.
Mrs. Sarah Harris, of 25, Exmouth-streot, stated that

on the previous afternoon as she was proceeding along
Oxford-street, she saw the prisoner in company with
some other lads who were sounding the pockets of
several females. Witness watched them for some time,
when her attention was called to a sharp tug at her
dress. On looking round she was surprised to find the
prisoner with her purse in his hand. She laid hold of
him and detained him till a constable arrivd, into whose
custody she at once consigned him.
The prisoner did not deny the charge, and begged the
Magistrate to send him to the Old Bailey, as he had,
been previously convicted at the Middlesex sessions.
_ _

Mr: HARDWICK said that was a very sufficient reason
that he should be sent there again. He should there-
fore commit him to take his trial at the ensuing ses-
sions.

James Latchin, a diminutive urchin, was charged with
stealing a silver milk ewer, the property of Mr. James
Barnet, tailor, No. 32, Maditox-street.
_

It appeared that on the preceding afternoon, about
three o'clock, the prisoner was observed to sneak up
the area of the prosecutor's house in such a suspicious
manner as to cause the prosecutor to follow him and
bring him back to his house, where he was searched,
and the milk ewer found in his pocket. .

The prisoner, who admitted the charge, was com-
mitted for trial.

CLERKEN WELL.

John Fen Son, who stated himself to be a licensed
hawker, was charged by his wife with being drunk and
incapable, under the following singular circumstances:—
It appeared from the statement of the wife that the
prisoner came to London on Wedne, day to purchase
goods, and went out on Thursday with 301. in his pocket,
and remaining out longer than she expected, she went
to look for him, when she found him in Golden-lane,
followed by a crowd of boys, and flourishing a bag con-
taining twenty-nine soverfigns and a quantity of silver.
Finding her entreaties in vain in bringing him to reason,
she called %policeman and gave him in charge.
Mr. BROUGHTON said, under all the circumstances, he
should let him go, but he hoped this would be a warning
to him on his next commercial trip to London.

LATEST PRICES OF SHARES.
IN BANKS, ASSURANCE. AND OTHER COM-

PANIES' STOCK.
From de Official List,

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING,

LONDON. FRIDAY, JULY 9.

/OrNW-STOCK

Dividend Amount
Name of Company: • per of Paid. Prl CR
Annum. Share.
• s. d. L e. d.
Australasia.....• ...• 40 0 0 40 0 0
3ritsh North American 51. per Jent. 50 0 0 50 0 0
;ommercial of London 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0
. • 51. per cent. 100 0025 0 0 —l.ondn and Westminstr Gt. per cent. 100 0020 0 0 263
•ondon Joint-Stock .. • 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0
Aetropolitan
Provincial of Ireland•• 81. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0
Ditto, New.• •••• • • • 8/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0
National of Ireland .• 51. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 0
Nat. Provncial of Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 0
Ditto, New.• ••••• • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Union of Australia •• • • 61. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0
Union of London. •• • • Si. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0

CANALS.
Annum.
Names ot :4 Dividend Price. Names of 4 Dividend
v
.-. per Price.
Companies. A I
, per Companies. A
ct: Annum. v.,
--4-
X 1
X
tshtn& Oldh 97'5/.55. pc 70 Monmouthsh 100 101. -
Isliby-d-la-Z 113, 41. - Mntgomrysh 100 51. -
Barnsley .• .. 160 121. 180 Macclesfield. 100 -
Basingstoke.. 100' - - Neath ...... 100 201. 340
Britiik&Abrg 150', 51. 85 Nottingham. 150 121. -
.Iromford.... 100, 141. - Peak Forest. 78 31. 40
Dudley ....• . 1001 41. - Regent's •• • • 33 1/. 4s. 20%
Derby .•• • • 100' 6/. 63 Rochdale.... 85 4/. 54
Eilsmre&Chs 133; 4/. 51 Shropshire .. 125 81. -
E:ewash •• • 100 321. - Somrset Coal 150 71. 10s. 130
North & Clyd 100, 4/. - Do.Lk Fd St 12 6/. p. c. -
iirauulJ unctn 1001 6/. 79 Stffrd &Worc. 140 281. 275
',rand Union 100. 1/. 10s. - Shrewsbury.. 125 151. -
.ilainorgnsh. 172; 13381. - Stourbrldge.. 145 201. 305
4istr & Brkly 'OO - - Strtfrd on Av 79 1/. 105. -
.a*anthani .. 150, 121. - Severn and 26 IL 88.
B uddersfleld. 57. - - Wye liail.
ITrilt SL M -
rKennt & Avu 39 7s. bd. 5 50 301. --
;.ancaster .• . 47 1/. 10s. - sey •• • •
Leeds& Livrp 100 341. 505 'Mama &Med "19 - ___
I,eicester ..• .1140 101. 78 ,Worcstr 1
78 2/. 41
Leicstr &Nth 83 4/. 36 Birming.
Loughboreghl42 701. 530 Wilts k Brks 67 11. 11

DOCILS.

St;inia'Or

Dividend Anitoun;
per of Paid. I Price.
Annum. Share.

1 X s. d. X h. d.
:onirnercial •• •
East and West India , 61. pr cent. , Stock.
East Country
1 andon
St. Katharine .• —• .
ion thampton • •

0 0

INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Priet
Annum. Share.
Xs.d. I s. d.
Albion •• • • 31. 105 500 0 0 50 0 0 74
Alliance Brit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 18%
Ditto Marine.• ••• • • 6/. per cent, 100 0 0 5 0 0 -
• • 138.6 d. pr sh. 50 0. 0 , 5 0 0 15
British Commercial .. 7s. per share 50 0 0 5 0 0 7
,ilericl,Med.&Gen.Life Si. per cent. 100 0 0 210 0 20%
jounty .............. 31. • 100 0 0 10 0 0
~rown •• •• •• • • 12s. 80 0 0 5 0 0 11
Eagle • 6s. 50 0 0 5 0 0 5%
Eng. Scot. •• .. 5/. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 -
European Life •• •• • 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. -
Freemasons' ..... • • 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 a 0 0
1:lobe .. •.• • • • 61. per cent. Stock. 127
Guardian • • 51. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 47%
Imperial Fire ........ 6/. and bonus 500 0 0 50 0 0 212
Imperial Life •••• • • • • 125. 100 0 0, 10 0 0 14%
Indemnity Marine.... 11. sh. & bs. 100 0 0 513 1 -
C..1.w Life.. • ......... 1/. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
egal and General Lite 50 0 0 2 0 0 -
.3ndon Fire .••• • . • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 14%
LondOu Ship 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 14%
Matte.. •... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 9 4
Med. Invlid& Oen. Life 4% /. per ct. 50 0' 0 2 0 0 2%
National Lean Fund• . W. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 -
National Life. . -
I alladium Life..
3/. p. ct. & bs. - 185
'rotector Life..
'rovident Life •••• • • • • 1/. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
Lock Lite •••••• • • • • • • 45. 50 0 010 0 4%
toyal Exchange 5/. per cent. Stock. - 180
suit Fire • • ••.• • • • • • -6/. 10s.
Ditto Lite ..... • • .•• Li. 6s. - -7-
Universal Lite ...-• • 10%i. pr cnt 100 0 6 15
LIST OP SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICZS
Dividend Amount'
Name of Company. per of ' Faid. i Fric(.
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. £ s. d
Bank of Set:Aland - 100 0 0 168
Royal Bank of Scotland 6/. per cent. - 100 0 151
British Linen Company Si'. per cent. - 100 0 0 200
Commercial Bank • • 6/. per cent. - 100 0 0 164
National Bank 6/. per cent. - 10 0 0 14l 2s.
Union Bank of Scotland 734 pr sent. - 50 0 0 88
Western Bank •• . 6/. per cent. - 50 0 0 84
Northof Scotland Bank 61. per cent. - 50 0 6%
Clydesdale Bank.... •• 61. per cent. - 10 0 0 13%
Eastern Bank.. .. - 10 0 0 11/ Its
Caledonian Bank ...• • 7%1. pr cent. - 210 0 41. 9s
Edi n b.& Glasgow Bank 61. per cent. - 50 0 7
City of Glasgow Bank . Si. per cent. - 10 0 0 13%
Icottish Union Ins. Co. 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 1234.0(1
tlercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 1 1254
Incur. Co. of Scothid 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 9
Borth British Insur.. • 5341. pr cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 26
Caledonian Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 22%
o:,linburgh Life Insur. 6!. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 18
Railway 11.10 s. per s. 50 0 0 50 0 0 69
Ditto, % Shares 7s. 6d. p. 5. 12 10 0 All paid. 17
-Ain., Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0 'JO 0 0 20%
.Ins w & Ayrshir 7/.per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 6t)
dasgw & G'reenck Rail. 2/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid.
w & Garnkirk Rail. Si. per cent. 15 0 0 Ali paid. 39',4,
•undee& Arbroth }tall. 6!. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 37
,t.indard LifeAssience.l N. per cent.l 50 0 0 I 2 10 0 1 9