The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 7, 1846.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 6.
The Lord Chancellor was occupied the whole morning
with hearing appeals, none of which possessed any fea
ture of interest.

LORD V. WIGHTWICK.

In this case the appellant obtained leave to amend the
petition of appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England within a fortnight.

CARMICHAEL V. CARMICHAEL.
This-appeal from the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce
was partly argued, and ordered to stand over till to-

morrow.

HAWKES V. HOWELL.
This appeal was dismissed, no person appearing for
be appellant.

HEMMING V. SWINERTON.
This appeal from the Vice-Chancellor of England, the
question in which related to an award, occupied the
Court the remainder of the day,

TOLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.
CARPMEAL V. POWIS.
This was a cause in which the plaintiff sought to
amend and rectify a settlement which he had executed
in favour of the defendant, Letitia Po•.vis. The facts
were simply these ;—Trie defendant, a lady of property,
had agreed to sell the plaintiff two freehold houses of
which she was possessed for a sum of 1,8001. The plain-
tiff, finding it more convenient to pay an annuity than
the purchase money, intimated the same to Miss Powis,
who seemed satisfied with the proposal. Her brother,
Mr. Thomas Powis, was then authorised to ascertain
what would be the amount of annuity granted on
the life of a spinster of fifty-eight years, the age
of Miss Powis ; and the plaintiff agreed to give one
per cent. more than Government would give. The ques-
tion was answered by a gentleman in the Government
office, named Cuthbert, who stated on a slip of paper
that the sum would be 1581. 9s. 63., and the defendant
then offered 1761. 10s. fiti. This occurred on the 3d of
October, 1839, and on the Bth of the same month the
deed was executed. The plaintiff, however, having per-
' ceived, some time after, from a statement in the 7 imes,
that Government gave lower annuities on female lives
than on those of males, and that consequentl7 he had
given a larger annuity than he intended to have done,
adopting as a mode of calculation the information he had
received as to the aMount that would be granted by Go-
vernment.
Lord LANGDALE took time to consider his judgment.'
His Lordship has fixed Saturday as the day in future
for short causes, consent causes, and unopposed petitions,
and for general petitions the 24th instant.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nom 6.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND)

His Hosoutt, after disposing of the unopposed peti-
ions and short causes in his paper, proceeded with the
lather arguments in the part-heard cause petition of

'GRACE V. WEBB

We gave the facts of this petition yesterday, the
question in which was whether the petitioner was en-
titled under the will of the testator in the cause to an
annuity of 201. or to one of 40/. The Master had re-
ported in favour of the annuity of 201.
His HoNoun, at the conclusion of the arguments, gave
judgment overruling the Master's report, the effect of
which would be to give the petitioner an annuity of 40/.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the morning
with cause petitions.
(B&ore Sir J. AVIonAm.)
KEMP V. HURST.

IBS TIONOUR ordered this cause to stnnd over till to.
morrow.

DUNCOMBE, 11. P., v. LEVY.

This was a case in which the defendant had taken
proceedings against the plaintiff to recover 1,2001., which
was due to him by the plaintiff. It aas alleged on behalf
of the plaintiff that a civenant existed, executed at the
time of contracting the debt, to the effect that the defen-
dant should not proceed against him for the recovery of
the debt by law.
His HONOUR said it appeared to him that in this
cause there were two judgments, and the execution was
carried down to the last. Considering the questions
that had been raised at the bar, he could not now decide
in favour of Mr. Levy. It was quite evident that Mr.
Levy had ordered Mr. Lewis to proceed with the execu-
tion against the plaintiff; who alleged that, by that very
act he forfeited the debt. The only question he had to
decide was whether he should extinguish the debt of
1,2001., or grant indulgence to Mr. Levy. He would for
the present suspend his judgment, and confine himself to
the opinion he had expressed.
LONEGAN V. SCIIOLEFIELD, AND LONEGAN V. LONEGAN.
This cause came before his Honnur on an original
supplemental bill, and the object of the suit was to dis-
pose of property to the value of 12,000/., conveyed by
the testator in a marriage settlement. The object of the
present application was to obtain a decree, by consent,
to have an inviry before the Master.
His Hosouß, after some deliberation, granted the
inquiry.

FRASER V. JONES AND OTHERS.
This was a bill filed on behalf of the Glamorganshire
Banking Company, with the view of establishing a
mortgage against the defendants, Messrs. MaLey
Jones, John Jones, and John Powell, which had
been given to the banking company for a consideration
of a sum of 6501. The question at issue was whether
the banking company were trust mortgagees, or whether
John Jones had not a prior claim to 2001. of the sum.
It appeared that in September, 1842, B. Jones and Mr.
Powell applied to the company in question to advance a
sum of 6001., in security of which he offered
them a mortgage on certain house property, on which
Powell represented that he had a mortgage of 1,8001.,
and further stated that he had deposited this mortgage
with Mr. J. JODe3 for a sum of 1,000/., which he was
indebted to him. The company advanced the sum de-
manded, requiring, merely as security, seven promisscry
notes, which were accepted by Mr. B. Jones, and en-
dorsed by Mr. Powell. A mortgage was executed, in
which the former mortgage was mentioned, as well as its
lodgement with Mr. John Jones, as alsu that another
mortgage existed to a gentleman named Parry. It
was alleged on the part of the plaintiff that
when the advance was made there was no dr:bt of 1,000/.
due to Mr. J. Jones, nor any deposit of the mortgage
deed. It was also alleged that the object of Powell was
to obtain a priority of claim over the bank.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. G.
(Sittings in Banco.)
AGENCY.—KEELEY AND ANOTHER V. WRAY.
This case was tried at Nottingham before Mr. Justice
Coleridge, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for
2101. 6s. The plaintiffs are manufacturers at Notting-
ham, and the defendant is in partnership with a gentle-
man named Graham, of Philadelphia. A Mr. Taylor,
of Liverpool, who has since become bankrupt, acted as
the agent of Messrs. Wray and Graham, and ordered
large quantities of goods for them, for which he paid,
and which were transmitted to him at Liverpool, in
order to be shipped for their destination. The invoices
were made out in his name, and the firm looked to him,
and not to Messrs. Wray and Graham, for payment of
the goods which they supplied to his order. At the
trial a witness of the name of Steadman proved
that Mr. Graham visited Nottingham, and e
pressed a wish to be introduced to persons
who could supply the wants of the firm of which he
was a member. Mr. Steadman inquired his terms; to
which he replied, that his firm wanted no credit; that
Taylor was their agent; that he had money belonging
to it in his possession, and that he would pay ready
money. Graham selected goods which were at once
paid for, and further orders were given by Ta:,lor. The
action was for the balance of an account which, it ap-
peared, Taylor had neglected to pay, although he had
received money for the purpose of paying for all goods
supplied to the firm through him.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE referred at some length to his
notes of the trial. From the evidence adduced, it ap-
peared that Wray stated, on one occasion, when the
plaintiff complained that the accounts of the firm were
paid in a very irregular manner, that he was sorry for
it, and exonerated the firm from blame, as Taylor had
had money in his hands some time to discharge them.
It further appeared that the invoices were made out thus:
Keeley and Co. in account with Wray and Co., and that
money had been enclosed to the plaintiffs on such an in-
voice. lie (Mr. Justice Coleridge), in directing the
jury, left it to them to say whether the custom of the
trade did or did not warrant the plaintiffs in looking to
the defendants for the payment of the balance of their
account.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and
a new trial had, on the ground that there was scarcely
any evidence to go to the jury, and that there was no
authority for the verdict which they returned. The
simple point at issue was, with whom the contract was
made. In the first place, he contended that it was made
between Messrs. Keeley and Taylor, and that Taylor
had no authority to pledge the credit of Messrs. Wray
and Graham.
Lord DENatAN considered that there was sufficient
evidence to go to the jury, and refused the application.
HOLE V. WHITE AND OTHERS.—DEPOSITING PROPERTY
AS SECURITY BEFORE A FIAT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict found for the defendants in this case
should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground of the verdict being against evidence and mis-
direction on the part of the Learned Judge who tried
the case. The action was tried at the last
Lirerpeol Assizes before Mr. Justice Cresswell,
and was one of trover to recover the value of a quantity
of hops. The pleas were not guilty and not possessed—
the question at issue being whether the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover the value of a quantity of hops deposited
with him on the 3d of May last year, under the follow-
inn' circumstances :—The plaintiff was formerly a brewer
at Manchester, an:l whilst engaged in that occupation he
employed a clerk named Boddington. He also carried
on the business of a =lister in Bucks, which he conti-
nued to follow after relinquishing his occupation
as a brewer in Manchester, being in the habit
of sending hops to Manchester for sale, Boddington
acting as his agent, and the plaintiff being in the habit
of frequently visiting Manchester, in order to receive the
produce from Boddington. Boddington c.arried on
business on his own ace, writ, and, in the spring of last
year, speculated largely in bops. He had pur-
chased large quantities from the warehousemen
with whom they were deposited for sale.
At the trial it appeared from the evidence of Badding.
ton's brother that, observing hire very uneasy for some
days before the 2d of May, he asked him the reason.
He at first declined to reply to the question, but on his
brother inquiring if he had been using any of Mr. Hole's
money, he, after some hesitation, replied that lie had.
The brother said it was a serous matter and must be
settled immediately in some way or other. He then
went
had
ttMeorn.tHarrison,inuea t
ocarrtyheonf(tlme
beruspianretsnserand ofMorl.dHhoile,
how the matter stood. Mr. Potter, the plaintiff's tsolieitomr,
was consulted, and a meeting took place, at which both
Mr. Potter and Mr. Boddington's brother insisted that
he (Boddington) should deposit hops, of the value of

2,000/. and upwards, to indemnify Mr. Hole against loss.
Potter stated that he was at first unwilling to accede to
the proposition, but that he ultimately consented, and
deposited them on the following Monday, when
they were taken possession of by Mr. Hole.
Immediately after Boddington wrote to a per-
son at Worcester, from whom he was in the
habit of purchasing hops, and to other creditors, all of
whom came to Manchester, where they had several
meetings, the result of which was, that a fiat of bank-
ruptcy was issued on the 25th May, and a messenger of
the Court of Bankruptcy forcibly took possession of the
hops. The bankrupt stated, on oath, at the trial, that
at the time of depositing the hops he did not contem-
plate an act of bankruptcy, and that he had ample pro-
perty, he believed, to pay twenty shillings in the pound ;
that the proposition did not originate with him, but with
his brother, and negatived anything like fraud in the
business. He (plaintiff) sought to recover what he believed
himself legally entitled to. Now he (Mr. Martin) con-
tended that the deposit of the hops was not a fraudulent
deposit under the bankrupt laws, and that the defend-
ants, who were the assignees of the bankrupt, and
whose duties did not commence until the 25th of May,
had no right to seize for the benefit of the creditors.
Neither was there any proof of fraudulent preference;
in fact, the defendants, on whom the onus of proof lay,
did not attempt to show any. But Mr. Justice Little-
dale, in giving judgment in the case of Mor-
gan v. Blunt, 5 Barnewall and Adolphus,
p. 289, stated, in order to show fraudulent
preference it was necessary to prove that the deposit
was voluntary, and in contemplation of bankruptcy.
There was no direct evidence of this kind adduced, and
he made an objection on this point at the trial, but it
appeared by the 90:h section of the Bankruptcy Act that
assignees were not bound to do so.
Mr. Justice ERLE inquired if there was any evidence
at the trial to show that Boddington was in a condition
to pay 20s. in the pound?
Mr. MARTIN said there was no direct evidence on the
subject, but it appeared that hops fell shortly after the
transaction, and subsequently rose again, but there was
nothing to show that he could not do so. He could have
raised the money on the hops at the time by selling
them, but he wished to keep them until the price im-
proved. This was not like the act of an insolvent.
Then be held that the misdirection consisted in the
Learned Judge stating that the act was an adverse one,
inasmuch as it appeared that the deposit was involuntary.
Lord DENMAN said he would consult the Learned
Judge who tried the case.

PI6IC.FORD L. LACON.—TAKING PLACES IN A COACH.
This case was tried in the Bail Court on Tuesday last,
before Mr. Justice Patteson, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff on the first and second counts, with the
leave of the Learned Judge to move for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be entered for the
plaintiff upon the first count, with 3/. 4s. damages, or
upon the second count, with les. or 17s. damages. The
application turned entirely upon the finding of the jury.
The plaintiff is proprietor of a coach running between
Yarmouth and London, and the defendant applied to
have three places reserved for him in the coach—one in-
side and two out—for which he paid a deposit of a guinea,
but had refused to pay three guineas more, the
cost of the three places being 4/. The pleas
set forth, first, the general issue ; secordly, that the
plaintiff did not reserve fur the defendant and other
persons the seats they required, and that the plaintiff
was not ready and willing to convey the defendant and
other passengers; there was also a plea of payment.
'1 he places were taken ore the 16th of June, and the
next day the defendant took his seat on the box, Lis
maid-servant at the back, and Mrs. Lecon
inside. At Renton, some miles from Yarmouth,
several little girls were placed on the coach, and at Yox-
ford, thirty miles from Yarmouth, the defendaat and his
wife left the coach, declining to proceed any further.
They left the servant behind and proceeded themselves
in a post-chaise to London. It could not be said that
the plaintiff did not fulfil his contract; the seats were re-
served, and the parties were not subjected to any more
of the inconveniences than generally attended a journey
in a coach.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Said he was in the case at
the trial, and had some recollection of an infant—fre-
quently no pleasant companion in a long journey—being
a passenger by the coach.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WATSON said a young child could not have taken
up much room, and considered that no breach of contract
couli be charged on that ground.
Lord DENMAN inquired how many persons altogether
were in the coach ?
Mr. WATSON said fifteen, thirteen being the number
they were licensed to carry ; but then the majority were
young children, who did not occupy anything like the
room of adults. The lady inside bed her full 16 inches
of room, in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
Lord DENMAN said—Then in point of fact, according
to the view of the Learned Counsel, the license was to
be measured by the extent of the bodies of the pas-
sengers.—(Laughter.) If the plaintiff was licensed to
carry thirteen, and carried forty instead, the defendant
and his friends were not bound to go by his coach.
Mr. WATSON also held that the defendant was bound
to pay for the journey to Yoxford, and for the journey of
the servant to London.
Lord DENMAN said it was possible that by taking the
defendant to Yoxford he was placed in a worse position
with respect to getting to London than if he had not
left Yarmouth.
The application was acceded to with respect to the
first count.

BAIL COURT, /Von. 6.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTEsoN.)
EXPARTE HENRY EDWARDS.

Mr. PETERSDORF moved for leave to exhibit articles
of peace on the part of Henry Edwards against Joseph
Crawford. The parties were rival omnibus drivers, the
exhibitant being driver of ono of the twopenny omni-
buses.
Mr. Justice PATTESON thought the fears of the exhi-
bitant were not sufficiently grounded, and rauscd the
application.

THE QUEEN V. DURANT.
Mr. WARREN applied for a writ of certiorari to
bring up an indictment for an assault from the Clerken-
well Session to this Court. The circumstances out of
which the indictment arose were of a very peculiar
nature, and would give rise to various questions i❑ law,
and would raise the question as to the right of the de-
ponent to enter the offices to inspect the books of a cer-
tain company until the sum of 7,5001. was paid. The
bill of indictment charged the offence to have been com-
mitted on the 10th of July, 1846, but the prosecutor had
taken no steps in the matter until the present time.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted a rule nisi, in case the
offence was a felony, and a rule absolute, in case it should
be only a misdemeanour.
THE QUEEN V. THE CO3IMISSIONERS OF SEWERS rOR THE

he stated that he was not to be considered responsible for
the goods, as he had not ordered them. Notwithstanding
this statement, the plaintiff still continued to supply tll
goods down to the following year, and for which they
also sont in their account to plaintiff. It also appeared
upon the trial, that a clerk in the employ of the plaintiff
stated, that the goods were booked is the name of
Sanders, the party to whom the goods were sent, and
that in keeping the books the goods were always entered
in the name of the person to whom the goods were sent,
and not in the name of the party who had ordered them,
and it appeared that there was no evidence whatever to
prove the liability of the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
WORSHIP-STREET.

This morning, a whole host of juveniles were brought
to this office, charged with letting off fireworks in the
public thoroughfares. Among the rest was a lad
named Frederick Dalton, thirteen years of age, who, it
appeared, when cautioned by the police-constable, was
urged on to the continuation of the nuisance by his
mother ; and one of the squibs which he afterwards let
off struck the constable upon the side of his face. He
then took him into custody. lie was fined ss.
James Hillingswaith, a mechanic, was charged by
William Butler, an officer employed at the Britannia
Saloon, with creating a disturbance and attempting to
defraud the proprietors thereof.
Butler stated that on Thursd4sy evening the prisoner
came to the saloon and paid 3d. for his entrance into the pit.
re he became very obnoxious, and at length clam-
bered over a railing five feet high, and which separated
the pit from a more expensive part of the house. The
prisoner, who had before been repeatedly cautioned,
was now forced from the theatre, and given into custody.
The prisoner, who begged hard for forgiveness, was
mulct in the penalty of 5.
_ SOUTHWARK.

Thomas Riley, a well dressed young man, was brought
befor,, Mr. Seeker, charged v-ith assaulting police-con-
stabl:? Lewis while, in the execution of his duty.
Tite policeman stated that on Thursday evening he was
on duty at the entrance at the Surrey Theatre, when he
perceived the defendant annoying parties who were en-
tering the house. He requested him to desist. Finding
that he still carried on his system of annoyance, he
took him by the arm for the purpose of removing him,
when he suddenly turned round and struck him in the
face. He then, with some difficulty, took him to the
st,(tion-house.
Tire prisoner, in defence, said that he was intoxicated
at the time.

Mr. SECKER raid the plea of intoxication was no ex-
tenuation,
and that he must pay a fine of los.
He was then committed in default of paying the penalty.
Margaret Cunningham, a young female, was chvrged
with v, Fully smashing several panes of glass in a trades
man's shop window.
It appeared a lodger in the complainant's house, meet-
ing with tile defendant in the Kent-road, invited her to
accompany him home to supper. He then opened the
door with a latch-key, and was proceeding up stairs to
his apartment with his new acquaintance, when the
landlord, hearing footsteps on the stairs, went out and
insisted on the prisoner's expulsion. The prisoner,
irritated at being treated with such incivility, on getting
into the street. sent a shower of gravel and small stones
at the windows, and smashed several panes of glass.
The prisoner expressed her sorrow at having broken
the windows, and said that she had been out for a holi-
day, she was tired, and that meeting with the com-
plainant's lodger she accompanied him to have some
supper, when she was so unceremoniously thrust out of
the house.
Mr. SEeKER said she had acted with great folly in
availing herself of the invitation of an utter stranger.
She must pay for the wilful damage or be committed.

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

FANIES' STOCK.
From t'ze Official List,

lIBLISTIED EVERY TUENDA Y AND FRIDAY EVENISG

LONDON FRLDAY, NOVEMBER 6
30INT—STOCH. Est:NIES.

Dividend Amount 1
Nacre of Company. per of Paid. Prick
P
Annum. Share.
- --
it
£ s. d. £ s. d. ci
sustralasia ...... •• • • 61. per cent. 40 0 0 40 0 0 - Ti
Etritsh North American Si. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 - IN
:.'ommerclal of London 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 - b
':Iolonial.. .. • • ...-.. . • 51. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 - .
Londu and Westminstr 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 - '
London Joint-Stock . - 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0
Metropolitan ......... - 25 0 0 7 10 0 1
Provincial of Ireland- 81. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 43 t
Ditto, New... ... •• • 81. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 -
National of Ireland .. Si. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 0 - 9
Nat. Provncial of En .r. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 8 l
Ditto, New.• •••• • • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 1
Union of Australia •••• 61. per cent.] 25 0 0 25 0 0 - i
Union of London... . • Si. per cent. 150 0 0 10 0 0 -
(
INSURANCE ComParzlES. ]
-
Dividend Amount i
Name of Company. per of Paid. Pric .
Annum. Share. •
£ 2. d. £ 2. d.
Albion ••••..•• • • • • • • 3/. lOs 500 0 0 50 0 0 75
Mliance Ilrit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 -
Ditto Marine. ..
,•.tlas .• • • ... ..... •• • • 13s. 6d. pr sh. 50 0 0 5 0 0 15%
British Commercial .• 7s. per share 50 0 0 5 0 0 7%
oleeicl,Med.& Gen. Life 51. per cent. 100 0 0 210 0 10
31. 100 0 0 10 0 0
Crown .. .. •• • • -
Eagle ••• • • • ...... •• • • 6s. 50 0 0 5 0 0 5%
Eng. & Scot. Law • •
European Life ••• • • • 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20
Freemasons' .•••• .. • • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 3 0 0
Globe ....... • • - 135
Guardian .... •••. • • • • 51. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 48%
Imperial Fire •••• • • • • 61. and bonus 500 0 0 50 0 0 230
imperial Life •••• • • • • 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
Indemnity Marine.. • • I/. sh. & bs. 100 0 0 513 1 31
Law Life.. • • -
Legal and General Life - 50 0 0 2 0 0 6%
Landon Fire •••• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15%
I.andon Ship •.•• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15%
Marine .. ..... - .... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 -
Ned. Itivlid& Gen. Life 1141. per ct. 50 0 0 2 0 0 -
National Lean Fund- 51. per cent. 20 0 0 2 10 0 -
National Life • • .....• • 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 5 0 0 8%
F &Radium Life ...... .. 51. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 21. Os.
l'hcenix - - 205
Protector Life. •• . •• • 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 -
Provident Life •••• • . . . 1/. se. 100 0 0 10 0 0 23
Rock Life 4s. 5 0 0 0 10 0 4%
Royal Exchange 5l. per cent. Stock. - -
tun Fire - - 210
• Ditto Life . • • • • - - 49
; Universal Life .. -
LIST OP SCOTTISEL COMPANIES' PR1C.7.11:.
i Dividend 4monnt
' Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
.
',, Z a. d. X s. d
' Bank of Scotland • 61. per cent. - 100 0 0 175
Royal Bank of Scotland 6/. per cent. - 100 0 159
i British Linen Company 81. per cent. - 100 0 0 220
Commercial Bank .. • • 61. per cent. - 100 0 0 162%
• National Bank 6/. per cent. - 10 0 0 141.14 s
Union Bank of Scotland 71141. pr cent. - 50 0 6 92%
Western Bank.... •• • • Si. per cent. - 50 0 0 84%
North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. - 5 0 0 7%
Clydesdale Bank 6l. per cent. - , 10 0 0 13%
Eastern Bank - 10 0 0 1114
'• Caledonian Bank - 2 10 0 41. 4s.
l. Edinb.& Glasgow Bank 61. per cent. - 5 0 0 6/. 19s
City of Glasgow Bank . 5/. per cent. - 10 0 0 13/. 6s
• Scottish Union Ins. Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 245. 6d
1 Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14%
, • Incur. Co. of Scotlnd Si. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 10
' North British Insur. • • 51141. pr cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 27%
a Caledonian Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24
Edinburgh Life Insur. 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0 18%
4 Edin. & Glasg. Railway 1/.los. pert. 50 0 0 50 0 0 72
• Ditto, 4 Shares 7s. Gd. p. s. 12 10 0 All paid. 18
' Edits., Leith, Le Grantn - 20 0 0 20 0 0 18
Glasgw & Ayrshir Rail. 71. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 69%
Glasgw&Greenckßail. 2/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 16%
Gisgw & Ganikirk Rail. 5/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 39%
d Dundee& Arbroth Rail. 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 37
i_ Standard Life Assnrnce.l 51. per cent. 50 0 0 210 0 9

DOCILS.

Dividend Amount
per of

same of Company.

Annum. I Share.

X s. d.

Paid. I Price.

Commercial
East and West India 6/. pr cent. Stock.
East Country
_ _

X 8. d.

If =don •••• • •

Stock.

St. Katharine .••• • • • • 5 per cent. I Stock.
Southampton ••••• • • . , 41. per cent. 50 0 0

WATER-virouss.

50 0 0

Dividend Amount
Name of Company. i per of Faid.
Annum. Share.

East London •••• • • •

Grand Junction •• • • • •
Kent • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••

Vauxhall

81. 1Z a.
100 0