The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-13 00:00:00

20
et
et
100

SHAREMARKETS.—This Day.

OKDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS.

Railways. Paid) Closing Business
Price. I done.

Illnatol and Exeter
Caledonian

85 $7
18 .18
4u 16

Cain brian
Cork and 8and0n......
Cornwall
Dublin & Belfast June
Dun„Perth, & A b.June
London, tcrip Certi
Do.
!llas;zow & S. Western
Great Eastern, Ord. stk.
Do. E. Angl. st. No. •t
Great North of Scotland
Great Northern
D t. A stock
. • !
Do. B stock

4 6
C 5 63
70 72

1 6 IS
25i 26
5 8

13 111
123 121

Do. :New, is. at 25
Gt 6, and \V. of Ireland
(it. Western -Uriginal
S. V.ti. hail gua
Do. South Wales

Do. W. Mid.—Oxioru
Do. Newport
Do. Hereford

LaneAshire Yorkshirui
LJudon and Black walli
Lon., Lirigh.,k S Coast,
Lon., Chat., and Davvrl
Do. Metrop. Ex. A
Lon. & North Wester►,
Lon. do South Western
Han., Shet., A Lincoln,
Atetropolitan....
Do. New

Do. Extension.—
Inetropolitan District.
Do do. do.
Jo. and at. John'a IV
Mid and
Do. £9 Share
Do, Birmin.. dt Derb}
►lid Kent . .

North British
Do. Ed.' Pth., & Dun
Nth. Eastern —Berwick,
Do. G.INI•E purchase!
Do. Leeds
Do. York
DG. Carlisle .....
Do. Stock. & Darling.
Do. do. 1860-61 .
North London
Do. do. 1864 5 . .
Do. do. 1866
North Staffordshire
N. & S. W. Junction
Scottish Central

Scot. N. E Aber. stock
iJo. Scot, Mid. st.)ck
Shropshire Union
South Devon
iouth E.stern

itaines, Wok., ct Wok
l'aff Vale
Do. C
Vale or Neath
Waterford & Kilkenn)
Waterloo Sc Whitelta I,
West Cornwall

BRITISH 1'

Atlantic, St. Lawrence
Rom.,BarodaoiCcn.ln.
gu. 5 per cent...
Do. I' shares
lsuffalo & Lake Huron
_ Do. Preference

ISSN;

90 02
58 SO

30 35
3) 3)

I 23i 1231

:1 81
15i 16
10 ZO
1151 1151
80 Be
45 *6
120 122
J 2 p
10 11
83 85

1191 1191
It 21,
90 )2

35 36
4 18
103 IL4

ISIONS.

B utT., Brant, & Go deficit
6 p.c. 1872-3- t.......• 1
Calcutta & B. E., Lim
ape Town A; Dock, gu
Demerara, 7 p.c. per. p•
East. Bengal, gu., 5 dol
East Indian, gu. 5 p.c.
Do. J Extension
,grand rrunkot Canada
Do. Equip. Mort, Bonds
1 charge 6 p.c
Do. Ist Pref. Bonds
Do. do deferred
De. 2d Pref. Bonds
Do. do. deterred

Do. 3d Pref. stook...
Do. do. deferred ...
Do. 4th Pref. stook.

Do. do. deterred
G t. India Pen. gua. sp.c
o. Gua. 5 per cent
Do. New ova. 5 p. c
bit. South of India
gua. 5 per cent
D 41 per cent
Do
i.3reat W. of Canada..
Do. New
Do. 6 p. c. Bds. pay. 1873
uo. 54 do. pay. 1877-8..
Indian Branch, limited
Madras, gua. 5 p.o
Do. 4g do
Do. 4a do

Do. Fifth Extension
3delb. Cor. 6 p. c. finds.
Mel. & Hudson's Bay..
N. lil.C'da,6pc lstpf.bs
Scinde .
Do. Delhi
Do. do ..I'a 4.
Do. Puniaub....
Do.lndus St.Flot 'hu

66 68
102 103
id ip
4 46
76 86

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Siftings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall before the Lord Chia:

Justice and a Special Jury.)

TAYLOR AND OTHERS V. THE COMMISSIONERS OP THE
RIVER WEAR.

This was an action brought by the proprietors of a screw
vessel called the Haswell, to recover compensation in
damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through
the negligence of the defendants.
It appeared that on the 7th of August, 1865, the vessel
was leaving the do.:k •at Sunderland, having loaded at
ono of the " drops" or stairs in the dock. It was
then discovered that she was making water very fast
through her b3ttom, which was the nature of the injury
complained of. The defendants were appointed Commis-
sioners of the river and docks, under Act of Parliament,
and the plaintiffs alleged that they were liable for the in-
jury, as they sh:ruld have kept the dock free from obstruc-
tion. The defendants denied their liability, on the ground
that they had no funds, or insufficient funds, applicable to
the purposes of the river ; that there was no negligence, &c.
The case is likely to occupy some days, but the facts are
not sufficiently interesting to the general reader to render
a detailed report necessary.

15 =f

100
100
100
all
100
100

50 55
101 103
0t IC3
105 106

1154
8

COURT OF BANRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE THE REV. R. LEE, THE RECTOR OF STEPNEY.

This bankrupt was described as the rector of Stepney,
and to-day was appointed for the last examination.
The accounts show, debts, £9,753; assets, £5,180; and
deficiency, £4,573. The largest creditor is Mr. J. Leo, of
Southampton• buildings, who claims £5,000, but holds
policies of insurance upon the bankrupt's life. The case
was not concluded when this report left, but it was under-
stood that an adjournment would be ordered.

1201 191

18 20

85 88
57 59
50 64
50 51

37 40

23 25

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

THE HOUR SYSTEM IN THE BUILDING TRADE.-BUCK T.
AXFORD ANHCO.

This was an action brought by a journeyman bricklayer
to recover wages in lieu of notice, he having boon sum-
marily dismissed in the middle of the day.

10 107
i 1 1'
i 1v

1021
105 42

1C 5}

MANSION-lIOUSE.

Mr. Merriman appeared for the plaintiff, and having
called evidence, contended that his client was entitled to a
reasonable notice before he was discharged from his work.
In the present case ho had commenced the day, and was
entitled to finish it although he was paid by the hour, in
accordance with the terms of the agreement between the
masters and the men after the great strike.

Mr. Beard, on behalf of the defendants, said that the
effect of the hour system was that either side was entitled
to dissolve the contract at a minute's notice, and one of the
defendants said that he knew of his own knowledge hun-
dreds of cases where the men had left their work at a
moment's notice, in the middle of an hour even, and had
been paid up to the time they had worked. Plaintiff had
been paid for his work in the present instance.
Mr. Merriman urged that a system of discharging mon
at a moment's notice was very unfair, and contrary to all
principles of justice, and he cited the case of men who had
been punished at police courts for leaving their wo.rk
without giving notice.
His Honour did not understand the reasonableness of the
claim set up by the plaintiff, who was, by his own show-
ing, an hourly servant. it had been shown that he was
engaged by the hour and paid by the hour, and according
to the evidence it did appear that either side had a right to
terminate the contract at any time. In this case the ver-
dict must be for the defendants.
Mr. Beard declined to accept any costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

swered.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

The Smithfield Club Dinner.

THE SUN, LONIsON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 1866.

Mr. Arnold—You told tho man that 3d. was all the
money you had.

Porter—l told him I must search him, and ha said 3d.
was all the money he had.
An Inspector, from the T division, said--This man came
to the station last night and asked for an order for admis-
sion to the casual ward, stating that he was destitute.
Mr. Arnold—This is abominable. It is one of the worst
cases that ever came before me. Here is a man, with
plenty of money in his pocket, throwing himself upon the
poor rates, which are contributed by many persons in a
poor condition themselves. You are committed, defen-
dant, for 14 days' hard labour, and the money found upon
you will be forfeited to the poor.

THE SCUTTLING OF THE SIIIP SEVERN. —To-day the
further examination of Hol'isworth, Berwick, Webb, and
Dean, charged with feloniously scuttling the ship Severn,
with a view to defraud, &c., was proceeded with before
Mr. Alderman Fiunis.

Mr. Lewis conducted the prosecution.
The first witness taken this morning was Mr. H. Sharp,
one of the managing clerks of Sir J. Pierce and Company,
who was examined with a view of showing that although tke
cost out of pocket by the prisoners for the ship Severn was
only £3,000, sho was insured to the extent of £19,000,
either at homo or abroad.

Mr. Beard put a variety of questions to the witness in
cross-examination, when,

Mr. Lewis asked whether it was customary to insure
a ship to three times the amount of its cost.
Witness - Certainly not.

Mr. B. C. Smith, of the firm of Smith, Simpson, and Co..
Barge-yard, Lombard-street, said ho knew Holdsworth and
Berwick. Both were introduced to him about six years
ago by Mr. Heathcock, of Liverpool. He had cnly known
Webb a few weeks. His firm were the mortgagees of the
ship Severn. Mr. Thomas Ward was the registered owner
of the ship, and Berwick was his security. Holdsworth
introduced Ward to them in the middle of February, and
then negotiations were entered into with Holdsworth to
enable him to purchase the ship. He brought forward
Thomas Ward as the owner, and he also said the name of
the vessel was the Severn, that she was a fine ship, and
that she was in the bands of Mr. Crawshaw, the broker.
Holds worth said Thos. Ward and Co. were wine merchants,
and were in a very respectable line of business. His part-
ner, Mr. Simpson, made some inquiries with respect to
Ward and Co., and in a few days after Mr. Holdsworth
was told that the inquiry was not satisfactory, as they
considered Ward and Co. were not sufficiently responsible
for the purchase of a ship like the Severn. He called at
the office a fevl days after this, and he then said he had a
more responsible person who would guarantee Thomas
Ward and Co., and that was Mr. Thomas Berwick, who
had lately lost a ship. We knew this fact, and therefore
thought he was a moniad man. We then told Holdsworth
we would assist him in purchasing the ship. Holds-
worth said there was a mortgage with Crawshaw on
the ship of between £3,000 or £4,000, and he wished
us to take it. The ship was purchased, and the
his firm insured the hull of the ship for £5,500. He first
saw the Severn had sunk on the 30th of July. To his
knowledge the sum he had mentioned was the entire in-
surance in their office ralativo to the Severn. He would
swear they never had any other policy for a larger amount
than he had stated. The ship was valued in the policy at
£lO,OOO, and before she left London his firm had made
payments on account of the ship to the amount of £6,410.
He knew Berwick as the owner of the Jane Brown.
Mr. Lewis asked witness if their firm were the mort-
gagees of the Jane Brown ?
This question was objected to by the solicitor for the
prisoners as irrelevant to the present proceedings.
_ _ _

Alderman Finnis ruled that the question should be an•

Witness continued—Berwick was the owner of that ship
and they made advances to him on the ship. He did not
contemplate being examined on the point, and he could
not state the amount of the advance. He could not say
whether any insurances were effected on that ship, but he
should think there were. He could not say the amount.
He had no remembrance who effected the insurances for
them on the Jane Brown. Fraser and Lupton were their
brokers, but he could not say whether they did so. They
might have transacted the business themselves. He never
troubled himself with the details of the loss of that vessel
nor had he taken any steps since he had heard that the
ship had been bored to find out the sum she had been
insured for. He had been a ship and insurance broker for
two-and-thirty years.
Some further evidence relating to the cargo having been
adduced, the prisoners were again remanded.