The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-06 00:00:00

Isiew Granada
Do 2 per Cent —
Do. Deferred
Do Land Warrants (Hectares)
Peruvian 5 per Cent., 1865
Do Account 66
Do 4i per Cent. (Uribarren)
Do 44 per Cent., 1862
Portuguese 3 per Cent., 1853
Do 3 per Cont., 1856, '7, '9, '6O, '62, '3,
Do. Account
Russian 5 per Cent., 1822, £ St
Do 44 per Cent. 1850
Do 44 per Cent., 1860
Do 3 per Cent. 1859
Do 6 per Cent. 1862 BB4 4
Do 5 per Cent. 1864 924
Sardinian 5 per Cent
Do. Account

Spanish 3 por Cent
Do Account
Do New Deferred —
_
Do Account
Do Passive —
Do Account 2ll
_ _ _

Spanish Cert. of Coup not funded
Do Account l3l
Swedish 4 per Cent.
Do. 44 per Cent. 1864
Turkish 6 per Cent. 1854
Do. Account
Do 6 per Cent. 1858
Do. Account
Do £lOO Bonds
Do 6 per Cent. 1862
Do Account 591
Do £lOO Bonds GO
Venezuela 3 per Cent.
Do Account
Do 6 per Cent., 1862
Do Account
Do. 6 per Cent, 1864 3ll 2
Ditto 14 per Cent.
Dividends on the above payable in London.
Italian 5 per Cent. 1831, Ex. 25f.
Do. Account
THREE O'CLOCK.

Consols, Money B9i
Do. Account

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn

and Justices Mellor, Shoe, and Lush.)
ASAKEHAM V. BVLLOCK.

Mr. Mellish, Q.C., moved for a rule calling on the plain-
tiff to show cause why a verdict he had obtained in this
case for £476 16s. sd. should not be set aside on the ground
of the production of additional evidence since the trial
The plaintiff was an extensive merchant at Manchester
d defendant was a member of a firm at Rangoon, and the
action was brought for the proceeds of a quantity of goods
consigned to that firm. The case for the plaintiff was, that
he was employed by the firm of Messrs. Halliday, Fox,
and Co., at Manchester to dye some goods which he
proposed to send to the defendant at Rangoon
The dying was defective, and it was arranged
that the plaintiff should consign the goods through Halli-
day and Co., to Messrs. Bullock at Rangoon, on his own
account. Tho goods were accordingly sent with a letter
from Mr. Halliday requesting that the proceeds should be
remitted to him, which was accordingly done. At the
trial a gentleman named Barlow was examined, who proved
the arrangement between the plaintiff and Messrs. Halliday
and Co., and who deposed, also, that he was at Rangoon
and saw the letter from Mr. Halliday, and that he expressed
his surprise to one of the partners that such a letter should
have been written when the goods were consigned by the
plaintiff. Messrs. Halliday and Co. became bankrupts,
and the plaintiff brought his action against the defendant
to recover the value of the go-ods. For the defendant
and iu support of the rule, an affidavit was now put in
setting forth that the evidence of -Mr. Barlow was un-
founded, and that the firm at Rangoon were not aware of
the arrangement between the plaintiff and Messrs. Halliday
and Co., and therefore not liable for the proceeds not being
paid to him.
The rule nisi was granted.

GREMALDI V. THE LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., moved for a rule for a new trial, on
the ground that the verdict of the jury in favour of the
plaintiff for £250 was against evidence. The case was
tried last term, and it appeared that the plaintiff (Mrs
Gremaldi) was getting out of an omnibus in the Edgware-
road, when one of the defendant's omnibuses came into
collision with her, the polo striking her violently and
knocking her down. Two of the wheels were stated to
have passed over her right arm, and it was not denied that
sbe had been severely injured. As usual there was a deal of
conflicting evidence as to the position of the omnibuses at
the time of the accident, and it was contended on behalf of
the detendants that the statement of the plaintiff as to
the wheels of the omnibus having passed over was untrue
or there would have been a fracture of the bone.
The rule was granted.