The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-13 00:00:00

93 WO
91 93

161 36}
41 4
92 34
84 e 6
1 6d
9:1 101
90 92
86 88

64 66
8 82
98 994
98 99

4,1
98 99

- -
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
- British Columbia, 6 per
cent., Dec.3l, 1372 100 -
Can.Gov.6 p.c.Ja.& July
1877-64
- Do. 6p. c. Feb. & Aug lOO 93 96
- Do. sp. c. Mar. & Sept 10J 93 96
- Do. sp. c. Jan. & July 100 79 81 80
- Do. sp. c. inscribed sk 100 78 80
Cape G.Hope, 6 p.c. 1873 100 101 103
Oo.Apl. &Oct , 1890-1900 100 104 106
Do. do; 1880-9, 100 104 106
Do. Jan.&July, 1890-9! 100 101 103
- Do. 5 per cent. 15 April
and 15 Oct., 1900 lOO 90 92
- Ceylon, Nov, 1868, 6p. t 100 101 103
- Do. 1878, do. 100 106 1 8
- Mauritius, 6p. c, 1873,
Jan: and July
- Do. 1.78
- Do. 1882, May ;5. Nov. 10 103 105
- Do. 1895, Feb. 43z Aug lOO 104 506
- Natal •;ov. per cent MI 99 101
Nt.ll.Gcv_6p.c.Ja...k.l uly iuo toa
- N. S.W. Gov. 5 we.,186f- 100 - -
- Do. 5 p.c. 18;1 to 187, 100 92 94
- Do. 5 p.c. 1888 to 189.: 100 87 89 138/
- New Zealand, 6p. cent 100 100 102
- Do. 5 per cent.... .. 100 8s 84
Nova Sc ,tia Gov. 6 p. c
sterling, 1875 l9O S 8 103
- Queensland Gov. 6p. c lOO 98 100 586
- S. Aus.Gov. 6 p,c 1868-11 100 --
Do. 1878 & upwards l' 0 104 108 106
- Vic,Gov. 6 p.c. Ja & July 100 - -
- Do. do, i%pril & Oct lOO 105 106 1054
BRITISH MINES.
Cain. Consul, sold, lira. 1 -
Chiverton
t:lifford `• malgamated 3O 15 17
- Devon G. Cons. (Taoist 1 57) 590
- Drake wal ls 2.1.0 1
- East Bassett (Illogan;„ 244 18 20
- East Cara.'on 9.14. t 6 7
East tarn Brea 3l 44 41
- I,,ast Grenville
- East Gunnislake 8.3.,'
- East Loved 3.9.0 114 26
- E. WI Russell (Tavistk 10.8.3 3 32
- Gam.& StAubyn(G wen. 66 5 7
) CrGreat L txey, limited all 20 21
- Great South Tolgus 0.54.6 16 2
Great Wheal Busy-- 14.9.6 34
- G. Wheal Vor 'Heist c, 40 3C 32
- Grenville 8.18.0 34 34
- Herod's Foot . 8.10.0 40 42
- Hingston Downs 5.10.6 54 54
- Margaret (Uny Lelant 13.17.6 5 7
- Marke Valley • 4.10.6 4 44
4 3lwyndy Iron Ore, lin, ',24 2i lid
- New Seton
- North Roskear
- N.Wh'l Bassett (Mogan 4.4.0 1 I
North Wheal Crotty
- Prosper United. -.. -
- Pruvidence UnyLelant 10.6.7 37 89
- S. Caradon (St. Cleer) l4 410 430
- South Condurrow 3.2.0 2 74
- S.Wheal Fran. (Mogan 18.18.9 ' 8 22
-- Stray Park 35.15 6 9 11
- Tin Croft 9 19 20
5 Vigra aria Megan, lint, all 4 6
- West Bassett (Illogaa
- W. Caradon (Llskeard 9 8 10
- West Chiverton ll 79 82
- West 5et0n......
- Wheal Bassett 'Mogan 56 95 r 0
- Wheal Buller (Redruth 16 27 30
- Wheal Mary Ann (Men. 8 3 5
- Wheal Seton
--
Wheal Trelawney (Lis 7 17 18

This was an action brought by the plaintiff forocompen-
sation for injuries sustained in consequence of the alleged
neglect of the defendants. The plaintiff was a passenger
on the North London Railway, and in the same carriage
that he was travelling in two ladies were also passengers.
The train arrived at the station and the two ladies alighted
in safety, but the plaintiff alleged that as he was stepping
from the carriage the train re-started, the result of which
was that he. was thrown on his head on the platform,
and sustained such severe injury that for 13 weeks he was
incapacitated from following his ordinary occupation, and
caused an outlay of a considerable sum of money for
medical attendance. After the accident he did not com-
municate the fact to the porter or guard on duty, but as he
was leaving the station he told the ticket collector that he
had met with a severe accident, and that he should make
the company liable for the injury he had sustained. He
contended the number df the company's servants at the
station was altogether inadequate to the requirements of the
number of passenger s using the station at night time. The
medical evidence for the plaintiff went to show the serious
nature of the injuries sustained, which were very severe.
For the company it was contended that the accident arose
altogether from the neglect of the plaintiff, and not from
any blame attributable to them. The regular signal was
given on the train entering the station, the porter called
out the name of the station, the doors of the carriages
were opened, and the passengers left the station in safety
with the exception of the plaintiff. The theory of the
defence was that the plaintiff did not rise to quit the car-
riage at the proper time, but that he remained in it too long,
and when he was stepping on to the platform the signal
had been given by the guard for the train to move, and
that as in ordinary cases a sudden jerk was generally the
result, and just at this particular moment the defendant,
unfortunately for himself, was stepping from the carriage.
The ;guard of the train and the porter, in evidence, said
they did not see the defendant fall, neither did they hear
at all of the accident, although they opened all the doors of
the carriages composing the train, and closed them again
as the train went out of the station.

The judge, in his summing up, explained the law on the
subject, and told the jury, if they thought the matter was
purely accidental, their verdict should be for the company.
The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, returned a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. C. Wilde.)
CONRADI V. CONRADI AND FLASHMAN.-JUDGMENT.

The petitioner in this case, which was heard some
days since, is steward of a steamer plying between
Dover and Ostend, and the co-respondent is a gen-
tleman of fortune. The petitioner prayed for a dissolu-
tion of marriage by reason of his wife's adultery, and
both defendants denied the charge. Subsequently to
filing of his answer, the co-respondent obtained leave to
amend his plea by placing on the record a charge of
adultery against the petitioner. It was fully proved
that there was an improper intimacy between tho
co-defendants at Dover, where all the parties resided, and
that it was carried on frequently during the absence of the
petitioner in France. On the other band the co-respon-
dent established his counter charge of adultery, and the
petition was accordingly dismissed. An application was
afterwards made on behalf of the co-respondent that the
petition might be condemned with costs which he (the co-
respondent) had incurred in proving the counter charge of
adultery, and judgment was reserved.
His Lordship now decided that the petitioner was rea-
sonably liable to the costs in that part of the co-,respon-
dent's relating to the adultery, subject to some deduction
arising out of certain frivolous charges which the co-re-
spondent made.