The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-26 00:00:00

LIST 01' SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. 1 Price.
Annum. Share.
8. d. s.
Bank of Scotland
Royal Bank of Scotland 61. per cent. 100 0 0 157
British Linen Company 81_ per cent. 100 0 0 223
Commercial Bank •• • • 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 161
National Bank ...... 6/. per cent. 10 0 0 15
Uniolll3ank of Scotland 734/. pr cent. -- 50 0 0 92%
Western Bank .••• • • • • 61. per cent. 50 0 0 84
North ofScotlandßank 61. per cent. 50 11 7
Clydesdale Bank ••• • 61. per cent. -- .10 0 0 1314_
Eastern Bank. •••• • • • 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 11
Caledonian Bank .• 7%1. pr cent. 210 0. 4%
Glasgow Bank 6/. per cert. -5 0 0 7%
City of Glasgow Bank .W. per cent. 10 0 0 13%
Scottish Union Itis.Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 248. 9d
Hercules Insurance Co. .71. per cent. 100 0
•0 10 0 0 14%
Liman Co. of Seetlnd• • Si. per cent.' 10 0 0 All paid. 9%
North British Incur •5%L pr cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 28
Caledonian Fire Incur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 22
Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 18%
Ellin. &Glen. Railway 11.108. per c. 50 0 0 50 0 0 75
- Ditto, M Shares 7s. 6d. p. s. 12 10 0 All paid. 18
Edin., Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0 20 0 0 15%
Glasgw& Ayrshir Rail. 71. percent. 50 0 0 All paid. 73%
Glasgw&Greenekßail. 21. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 16%
Gisgw & Garnkirk Rail. 51. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 40%
Dundee& Arbrothßall. 61. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 38
Standard LifeAseuruce. Si. per cent. 50 0 0 210 0 9
DOMES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
X e. d. £ s. d.
Commercial
East and West India
East Country ..... • •
114
n Edon Si. pr cont. Stock.
. lO4

3/. per cent. I Stock.
61. pr cent. Stock.
1/. per sh. 100 0 0
5/. pr cent. Stock. 114
5 per cent. Stock. 104
41. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 27X

St. Katharine • • ..... .
Southampton • • • • • • • •

CAN ALMS. -
• I 4 Dividend
Names of lDividend Names of er Price
Companies. 4I per Price' Companies. d
41Annum.
x, Annum. al
---,---
X 1
£ - -
Aihtn & Oldh 97,51.55. pc 70 Monmouthsb 100 81. 160
Ashby-d-la-Z 1131. 41. 70 Mntgomrysh 100 W. 98
Barnsley •• .. 1601 12/. 180 Macclesfield. 100 - 38
Basingstoke.. 1001 - - Neath .. 100 171. 340
Brknk&Abrg 1501 Si. 85 Nottingham . 150 121. -
Cromford..• . 1001 141. 150 Peak Forest .78 31. 40
Dudley lOOl 41. - Regent's .•• . 33 11. ss. 25
Derby .• •
Elismre&Chll33l 41. 55 Shropshire • • 125 81. -
Erewash •
Forth & Cly-d!100! 4/. - Do.LkFd St 12 61. p. e. 11
GraudJunctn 100 71. 9534 Stffrd &Wore 140 281. 295
Grand Union 100 11. 10s. - Shrewsbury.. 125 15/. 250
Glamorgnsh .1172 13% l. 210 Stourbridge.. 145 201. 315
GIstr&Brkly1100 - - Strtfrd on Av 79 11. 10s. -
Grantham • • ,150 121. 100 Severn and
Iluddersfield.l 57 - - Wyc Rail.
26 I/. Bs. 32
Kcnnt & Anil 20' TS. 6.1. 1 912 .Trnt& Mr-1
50 301. -
LaticA.er .• .1 471 It. 10s. - sey, 14 511.3
Leeds& Livrp!loo 341. 620 Thams &Med 198 - -
Leicester .. • • 140 101. 105 Worcstr &1
7 2/. 41
Leicstr &Nth, 83 41. 60 Blrming.
Loughboregh(l42l 701. 850 Wilts SD Bike 67 1L i i
LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,

June 25.

BANES V. GOODE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 560/., for which
the defendant was alleged to be liable. The defendant
pleaded that he never was indebted, and that he had paid
the debt, whereupon issues were joined.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Willis appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Rasvlinson for the defendant.
',lca was an all"Ctlini..b nEson+. anti
bad inserted general advertisements in the months of Oc-
tober and November last, in several town and country
newspapers, and in the railway journals, concerning the
Salisbury and Lymington Raililvay. The project was one
out of the large number which found their origin in the
speculative spirit of the last year, and appears to have been
got up by the Messrs. Wheel and Berkelq, solicitors, who
were assisted by.a barrister named Mellor. An office was taken
by the solicitors, in the Old Jewry, and a provisional committee,
consisting of several gentlemen, was in a short time formed.
In this part' of the formation of the project, a gentleman
named Downs, who resided at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight,
appears to have taken a considerable share. At the request
of the solicitors he became a member of the provisional
committee of the company, and was indemnified by them
against any liability he might incur in that capacity. Some
short time after he had become a party to the concern he
saw the defendant at Ryde, and communicated to him the
circumstance of his being on the provisional committee of
the Salisbury and Lymington Railway. The defendant
thereupon expressed a wish to have his own name inserted
in the list, and it was said that he applied by letter to the
solicitors for that purpose. That letter was lost, but in
compliance with the defendant's wish, he was admitted a
member of the provisional committee, and was offered in
that capacity au allotment of a certain number of shares in
the line, which, however,. he appears to have declined. The
intention of holding meetings in London was notified to the
defendant on each occasion, with a request that he would at-
tend them. On one of those occasions the defendant stipu-
lated in writing that his travelling expenses should be de-
frayed, an act which the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff
construed into a consciousness, on the part of the defendant,
of the responsibility of his situation.
Mr. CROWDER, on behalf of the defendant, represented the
case against his client as one which differed from any
hitherto brought before the Court, inasmuch as it v. as at-
tempted to fix the defendant with liability, simply from his
having been willing to allow his name to appear on the list of
the provisional committee. The questtihon which e
that state of facts, ww, whether it was
circumstance of a man having had his name hat thearose mereupon
list of provisional committee, authorisedtamteheinasettroterndei3n-, theth c
order goods upon the repruenta
w_
secretary, or any individual connected
_wsitbheitnhge company, to
The
as he apprehended,
party. That was a question
and it was one of such magni-
had not as yet been decided,
lan
tshe
of from liability.tnstatices
ot tulle dt
he
e andcase, importance,shotilshould
ewans
application of the principle of on which the plea of
partnership rested, would determine the question in favour
exonerate under
of the defendant, and he, therefore, confidently submitted
that he was entitled to the verdict of thejury.
The Loa') CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The jury. retired, and, after an absence -of ball au hour,
returned Tath-a verdict for We defendant,