The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-24 00:00:00

20 0 0
100 0 0

4
10 0 0
I 4 12 6

BRIDGES
Dividend amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
--- -- -
A. s. d. A. 11. d.
Hung erford • . • • .... • • - - - 15
southwrk ...... •• .. - JOO 0 0 - -
Ditto Nw of 7% p.c. 70s. per cent.' 50 0 0 - 16
Waterloo ............ - 1100 0 0 - 3
Ditto Old Ann. of 81. 21. Bs. Od. - 60 0 0 24%
Ditto Nw ditto 0f,71. 21. 2s. Od. - 40 0 0 21 %
Vauxhall .... •• • AY. 21. 70 10 3 - 18
WATBIL-WORNS
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
--- -
As. d. 4 5. d.
East ...........Si. - 151
Grand Junction ••• • • • 41. per cnt. 50 0 0 - 69
Kent-- ---- • • • • 41. per cat. 100 0 0 - 80
Lambeth - 97
New Rivr Lndn Brdge 41. Os. - - 57%
Vauxhall'• ••• - •• •... 51. per cat. 100 0 0 - 97
W3st Middlesex . . . , 61.05. pr cnt. - - 106
DOORS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
A s. d. A S. d.
commercial •• •• -•• .. 41. pr cent. Stock. - 85%
East and West Ind,a... 6/. pr cent. Stock. - 143
East Country ••.• • • • . 20s. per sit. 100 0 0 - -
London .• •• - .••• • • • 51. pr cent. Stock. - 118%
Ditto 80nd5........ 41. per cent. - - -
St. Katharine .... ••.. 3% per cent. Stock. - -
Ditto Bonds- ...... 4%1. pr cent. - - -
Southampton ........ 21. per cent., 50 0 0 50 0 0 -
CANALS.
, ..;
.: 'Di vidend
Names of ;. 'Dividend Names of r.,
per
Companies. A per• Companies. APrice.
Annum. Price.
ic Annum.
---.... -...._ _ _ -.-... ....._ -. ._,..
£ A
Ashtn& Oldh 9811. p. M. 140 Macclesfield . 100 2/. 10s. 50
Barnsley •• • • 160; - Neatk ••• • • • 1001 161. -
larknk&Abrg 150; 50. 85 Oxford.. •• • • 1001 13'. 135
Birmingham 40 41. 93% Peak Forest. 78 . 31. 18s. 70
Coventry.... 1001 251. 200 illegent's •• .. 331 it. 3s. -
Derby ••• • • 100 61. 63 Rochdale.... 25 ' 21. 44
Ellsmre&Chs 69 2% p. ct. 25% Somrset Coal 150 - -
GrandJunctn 100 3/ pr.ct. 52 Do.LkFdBt 12 - -
Do.. 6 pr. Ct. 10 61. pr. ct.,. 11 Stffrd &Wore 140 281. 405
Grand Surrey 100', 21. Os. 32% Shrewsbury.. 125 - -
Grand Union 100 11. 10s. 24 Stourbrldge.. 145 201. 290
Kennt& Avu 39.45. 04. 6% Severn and 21. Os. 24
Lancaster . 100, - - Wye Ran. % 26
Leeds& Livrp 100 201. 405 Warwick& 1 41. 40
Leicester .... 100 61. 66 Birmlng. 3 100
Leicstr&Nth 83 41. 44% Warwickesl
Lou ghhoregh 142 701. 510 Napton. • i
100 31. 28
lionmouthsh 100 - - Worcstr 81
78 31. 33
Ntitgamrysla 100 - - Birming.
IleltnMwbry,loo - - Wilts 3c Brks -' I Is. 6d. 7i

MON DAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, Nov. 22.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
THE QUEEN V. LATIMER.

Mr. COLLIER appeared to show cause to a rule ob-
tained in the early part of the, present term by Mr. D.
Keane, calling upon the defendant, the publisher of the
Plymouth Journal, to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against him for the publication of
a libel on the Hon. Mr. Jerningham. The substance of
the article complained of was as follows:--The article
stated that Mr. Jerningham, who is a Roman Catholic,
had married a few years since a lady who had subse-
quently become a member of the same Church, and by
whom there were several children. The article then had
gone on to say that about two years ago a separation had
taken place between the parties, and ;that two of the
children afterwards lived with IJre. Jerningham at Ply-
mouth. It then stated that Mr. Jerningham had,
without the knowledge of Mrs. Jerningham, gone to Ply-
mouth, and having ascertained that she was in the habit of
attending a particular chapel—For Mrs. Jerningham had
been reconverted to Protestantism—he had gone to
that chapel and taken away one of the children, a
little boy about nine years of age, without the know-
lege of Mrs. Jerningham, the mother ; and the libel
went on to say that Mr. Jerningham had done this in
contravention of an agreement which he had entered
into with a gentleman of the name of Williams, to the
effect that he would not take any measures whatever to
obtain the custody of the children. Now, on the part of
the defendant, the Learned Counsel said he was instructed
to state that, after the publication of the paper which
had contained this libel, he had instituted inquiries,
from which he had arrived at the conclusion that that
part of the article which had referred to this alleged
violation of the agreement ras not correct. The de-
fendant was also anxious that he should state in public
that he altogether retracted tEat part of the libel, and, at
the same time, to add that he had heard the matter from
a source which, at the time, lie considered it to be im-
possible to doubt the accuracy of, namely, from Mrs. Jer-
ningham herself, who was at the period under the im-
pression that Mr. Jerningham had entered into such
an agreement with Mr. Williams not to touch the
children. Upon inquiring of Mr. Williams, how-
ever, the defendant had found that the agreement
between himself and Mr. Jerningham had been merely
conditional only—on Mr. Williams being able to effect
an arrangement between kir. and Mrs. Jerningham
before the 20th of June last. The endeavour to accom-
plish any arrangement between the parties having failed,
the agreement became no longer binding upon Mr. Jer-
ningham, although Mrs. Jerningham would appear to
have thought that it was. Under these circumstances,
therefore, the defendant was anxious to retract that part
of the article complained of, and to make every repara-
tion in hie power.
Mr. Justice ERLE inquired if the Learned Counsel
had mentioned the matter to the Learned Counsel who
had obtained the rule? _ .

Mr. COLLIER bad done so, and had understood that
his Learned Friend would be satisfied with the apology
he was about to make. In the following week after the
publication of the libel the defendant bad inserted a letter
from a Mr. MiDonnell, which corrected the error he had
in the preceding wee.k been led into, and therefore he
had supposed, until the application for the present rule,
that the defendant would have been satisfied with that
as a sufficient apology on his behalf. 1-1 s had instructed
him now to express his deep regret at having given in-
sertion to that part of the article which had cast the
imputation charging Mr. Jerningham with a breach of
faith; and, iudeA, the defendant had instructed him to
withdraw every imputation which that part of the article
bad cast upon the honour of that gentleman.
Mr. D. KEANE said, that soon after his Lordship had
granted this rule there no doubt did appear in the de-
fendant's paper, in the form of a leading article, a state-
ment which had contained nearly that which had just
been said by his Learned Friend; but that article did
not contain any expression of regret on the part of the
defendant for the imputation he had thrown upon the
honour and good faith of Mr. Jeruingham, nor for the
contumelious manner in which the libel had reflected
upon that gentleman's character. But for the imputa-
tion upon his honour Mr. Jerningham would have treated
this publication with the utmost indifference, although it
contained other matters of insult, for none of which had
the slightest apology been made in that article; neither
had he been able to discover any expression of regret for
those insults in what had fallen from his Learned Friend
upon the present cccasion.
Mr. COLLIER was instructed to express the regret of
his client, and intended to do so.
Mr. Justice ERLE said that this had been an applica-
tion for certain powers in consequence of an injury
having been done to the plaintiff's character and honour.
When, then, the defendant expressed regret, and re-
tracted the imputation against his honour, and withdrew
the offensive part of the publication, the question was,
whether that was a satisfactory apology or not.
Mr. KEANE then said that, after such an intimation
from his Lordship, he would, on the part of Mr. Jer-
ningham, consent to have his rule discharged on the pay-
ment of costs by the defendant as between attorney and
client. He held in his hand an authority for such an
applicatioc. Ho found that authority in a case deter-
mined in the Court of Common Pleas—" Helisham v.
Blackwood" (as was understood), a case where, an apo-
logy having been accepted, the defendant had been
ordered to pay all the costs as between attorney and
client. _ _ _

Mr. COLLIER had not understood from his Learned
Friend that it had been his intention to press for more
than the costs in the ordinary way.

Mr. Justice EULE—No.

Mr. KICANE—If his Lordship were of opinion that ho
ought not to ask for costs as between attorney and client.
he would rest content with the ordinary costs.
Mr. Justice ERLE said there were great objections to
giving costs as between attorney and client. The rule
would, therefore, be discharged on payment of costs by
the defendant.—Rule discharged accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 22.

THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. BRADBURY AND EVANS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to know when their
Lordships would be prepared to give judgment in this
case, relating to the question whether Mr. Dickens's
Household Narrative was liable to the Newspaper Stamp
Act.
The COURT said they would be prepared to deliver
judgment on Tuesday next.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, N0v.22.
(Before Mr. Comtnibsioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE LEBIERR -JUDGMENT.

His Hozionn delivered judgment in this case on the
Ile
said—Thefraudu len t pre
main
question of certificatejnst
tthheisbmanokruruinpvc
was
cfehraertgiceeto his urged
°gchildren, and it was contended that the
offence came within the fourth clause of the 256th section
of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, " That if the
bankrupt shall at any time within two months next pre-
ceding the issuing of the fiat or the filing of the petition
for adjudication of bankruptcy, fraudulently, in contem-
plation of bankruptcy, and not under pressure from any
of his creditors, or to give an undue preference
to any of his creditors, with intent to diminish
the sum to be divided among his creditors, have paid or
smparatoidspetied any such
erstwyyofwi,
nicrperdtgittogr h
e, d
or
or in
r)lch
charged
edapnayr, or
ptarthv
of
have
what kind soever." Now he must say that
the evidence did not by any means show that the bank-
rupt bad brought himself within any of the four requi-
sites of this clause. He had neither acted fraudulently
nor in contemplation of bankruptcy, nor under pressure,
nor with intent to diminish the sum to bo divided among
his creditors. He was of opinion that the bankrupt only
acted in pursuance of a former agreement, in fulfilment
of a promise made long ago, and not at all in the manner
which the Act contemplated. Upon the whole he thought
this man ought to have his certificate. The only ques-
tion was respecting the class of certificate. He could not
think that the bankruptcy had arisen wholly or in part
from unavoidable loss or misfortune, and therefore the
Court could only award a certificate of the third class.
He must say there were many favourable features iu
this case, and that no ore had any ground fur imputing
anything that was fraudulent.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Joseph Perry, a person of respectable appearance,
was brought before the Lord Mayor charged with having
passed bad money.
Mr. J. D. Burrow, licensed victualler of St. Mary
Axe, said—The prisoner came to my house on Thursday
evening, and in my presence asked the barmaid, Ellen
Howard, for a pennyworth of gin, and put down a six-
pence upon the counter. She told him it was bad, and
I took it up and broke it in halves. I said to him
" This is too bad; you came on Saturday night and
served me with sixpence in the same way." I had
thrown that sixpence away. I then asked my wife
'whether she knew the prisoner, and she said that she
did, and that ho had given her a bad shilling a few
days previously. I then sent for a policeman and gave
him in charge. I threw the two pieces of the sixpence
which had been just taken upon the counter, and the
prisoner took them up and handed them to the police-
man, and said ho would not have offered the money if he
had thought it was bad.
Croley, a City policeman, said—l apprehended the
prisoner. The landlord said he had been twice before
at the howe with bad money. The prisoner put the
broken pieces of a sixpence towards me, and I took them
up. I took him to the station-house, and I found in
his pocket this part of a galvanic battery. It is com-
posed of plates of zinc in a frame, and sumo screws and
a wire. (The officer here exhibited certain apparatus
used by coiners.) I found also in his pocket some 11,1f-
pence. He said, upon being asked for his address, that
he lived at 24, St. John-street, Whitechapel, but, in
consequence of information which I received, I went to
No. 2, Tenter-street, Tenter-ground, Spitalfields, be-
lieving at the same time that the address which he gave
me was false. I found in a back room on the ground-
floor, which I was informed was his room, under the
head of the bedstead, a box containing several small ar-
ticles, a small quantity of melted metal, and the bowl
of a metal spoon. I also saw in the rooom a lump
of clay.
The prisoner—lt is false. I never was in that house
more than two or three times in my life. It is my bro-
ther-in-law that lives there.
The policeman—l shall be able to prove that the pri-
soner lives there.

The LORD MAYOR—I shall remand the prisoner and
send for the solicitor to the Mint to prosecute in this
case, which I consider, frcin the articles found upon the
prisoner and the course followed by him, to be one of
importance to the public at this time of perpetual utter-
ance of base coin.
Tho prisoner was accordingly remanded.
Mary Hamilton, an Aberdeen laz.sie, in the 80th year
of her age, %vai brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with having rung the bell of his Lordship's door, at
which female paupers have been long in the habit of