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

New Granada
Do 2 per Cent
Do. Deferred
Do Land Warrants (Hectares)
'eruvian 5 per Cent., 1865
Do Account
Do 41 per Cent. (Uribarren)
Do 41 per Cent., 1862
Portuguese 3 per Cent., 1853
Do 3 per Cent., 1856, '7, '9, '6O, '62, '3,
Do. Account
Russian 5 per Cent., 1822, X St
Do 4 per Cent. 1850
Do 4i per Cent., 1860
Do 3 per Cent. 1859
Do 5 per Cent. 1862 BBl
Do 5 por Cent. 1864
Sardinian 5 per Cent
Do. Account
Spanish 3 per Cent
Do Account
Do New Deferred
Do Account
Do Passive
Do Account

Spanish Cert. of Coup not funded
Do Account l3l

Swedish 4 per Cent.
Do. 4i per Cent. 1864
Uurkish 6 per Cent. 1854 --
Do. Account
Do 6 per Cent. 1858
Do. Account
Do £lOO Bonds

Do 6 per Cont. 1862
Do Account 6O
Do £lOO Bonds _
Vonozuela 3 per Cent. —
Do Account —
Do 6 per Cent., 1862 —
Do Account

Do. 6 per Cent, 1864 3l 2
Ditto 1} per Cent.
Dividends on the above payable in London.
Allan 5 per Cont. 1851, Ex. 25f.
I. Account

TWO O'CLOCK.

Consols, Money B9f
Do. Account

Do. December Account

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice dockburi
and Justices thee, and Lusk.)
MAKEHAM V. BITLLOCK.

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 tria
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. The 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 wore 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 goods. For the defendant
and in 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. Geffard, 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 ono of the defendant's omnibuses came into
collision with her, the pole 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
she had been severely injured. As usual there was a deal of
conflicting as to the actual 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.