The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY

Paid) RAUmAITS.

Leasing
Companies

Closing Prices
this day

Basiness
this day.

100
100
all
'lOO
all
100

ißnckghamsh
Clydesdale Jc
Col.Stour Vy.
E.Lin. g. 6 p.e
E. Un. 11. Sh.
Glag. BAIT. di
Neils. Direct.
Do. Nqw
Glstr.&Dn.Fr
Hull (it Selby
Do. Shares
Do. Shares
Lon. dz Greenw
Do.Preforence
Lon. Til., &S.
Do. Bark. Sh.
Manch.Baton.
and Matlock
Mdld. Bradfd.
Newmarket
BuryE.G.spc.
N.&Est.s p.c.
IDo. 6 per ct
Do. Fixed sp.c
Prest. dcWyre
Do. Shrs.
Roystn.& Hit.
Shrews.& Her
S. Staffordsh..
,WearVal.g6pc
Do
WiltsdiSomrst I

La.&N.W.
Caledon
E. U. & E. C
Gt.l,Tortlin
IE. Count.
Caldonian.

25
Vt.
5
St.

Do..

Gt. Westn.
& N.
Do

12}
12
20
St.

S.Eastern
Do

Peto &Co
Do

Ln. &N. W.
& Midld.
Midland...l

'lOO

all
all
all
all
all
100

IE. Count
Do
Do

L. di N. W.
Do

Git. Northn'
T. Brassey
M. Melon-,
Stk. &Dar
Do

Gft.VVestn.

99 - 101
102 - 104
13 - 15
138 - 140
4 -

165 - iii

13 -14
24 - 25
93 - 100

2 - 2
97i - 99
57
P • P
- i

- 140
8i - 9
91 - 104

32j--
90 - 92

321 I

72 1

1211

1001 1 100 i

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

ROLLS COURT.

(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir Joim Romilly.)

.TIIILLON V. EVANS, &c.
His Honour the Master of the R )11s, in delivering
judgment, said the object of this suit was to make
the defendants account to the plaintiff for the profits
obtained by them in their character of agents for the
plaiatiff in forming a c-anpany, and in carrying on the
busines3 of the plaintiff as patentee of the Rritish and
Foreign Candle Company, and also in granting license
of the patent, and in negotiating and effecting a sale of
the patent right of the plaintiff.

. -
His Honour, after considering the correspondence,
that passed between the parties, the evidence in the
cause, and contract of copartnery, came to the conch-
&on that the plaintiff had not supported his case by
sufficient evidence ; and, therefore, the bill must be
dismissed.

The bill was dismiss©d without cost., as against Mr.
Rogers, but with costs as against all the other parties.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Campbell, Justices Cole-
ridge, Erie, and Crompton.)
THE LATE FRAUDS ON THE CITY OF LONDON UNION.-

WADDINOTON V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE CITY OF

LONDON UNION.

Lord Campbell this morning delivered judgment in
this case. The pla'ntiff was an officer of one of the city
parishes comprised in the above union, and bad in his
official capacity declined to pay up certain calla made by
the guardians towards liquidating overdue trades-
men's bills, to the extent of 23,0001., and also for the
payment of 4,2001. overdrawn on the treasuries.
The plaintiff refused payment principally on the ground
that the arrears had arisen through the frauds and defal-
cations cf Maurice, collector for -nine of the parishes in
the union, and also to Paul's clerk to the board of direc-
tors, 1856. It was contended by the plaintiff that
Maurice was not the collector for the parish in question,
and, consequently, that the parish ought not to be called
upon to pay any portion of the defalcations of the collec-
tors of other parishes. The Court held that these offi-
cers were the officers of the union generally, and as such
the parishes forming the union were bound to make up
any deficiencies that might arise.
Judgment for the defendant°.

THE POPLAR BOARD OF HEALTH V. KNIGHT AND ANOTHER

In this case the respondents had cut away certain
portions of the marsh wall and built houses thereon,
which the appellants had demolished and claimed
two sums of 51. 5 61. and 21/ 14.. 21, expenses
incurred in so doing. The question was whether the
wall in question was to be considered as a sewer under
the act. The court held that as the wall answered the
purpose of preventing the Thames from overflowirg the
Isle of Dogs, it was to be taken as answering the purpose
of draining the Isle of D ,gs on the surface as much as
the sewers underneath at low water, and that, conse-
quently, it was to be considered as a sewer for the pur-
pose of the Local Act, and the Board of Health had full
power to deal with it as if it were a sewer, and they were
justified in doing what tbey did. The Court gave judg-
ment for the appellants, directing the respondents to pay
the sums claimed and certain costs.

Mr. Justice Crompton was not satisfied that the wall
was;to be consi lered aq a sewer under this act.
Judgment f it the appellants.
BRITISH EMPIRE SHIPPING 003IPANY V. JONES-