The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-05 00:00:00

TALLOW.

The tallow trade is quiet, at about late rates. P.Y.O is
quoted at 44s 3d per cwt., 44s for delivery to the end of the
year, and 45s 3d for spring delivery. Rough fat is selling
at 2s 21 per Blbs.

1863. 1861. 1865. 1366.
Stock—(this day)
_ins 9d to 40s 3d as 6d 44s 3d
Prices of Y.O l44s 04 40s 6d —a Od —s 04
Delivery last week
Ditto from June 1
Arrival last week 1,508 6,160 2,582 5,450
Ditto from June 1 55,702 43,823 62,627 53,437
Price of Town

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

VICE. CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)

THE LEEDS BANKING COMPANY EXPARTE MALLORIE,

This was a summons taken out by the official liquidator
to place the name of Thomas Peter Maßorie, of Leeds, on
the list of contributors of the company in respect of five
new shares.

Mr. Glass, Q.C., appeared for the liquidator, and Mr.
Bailey, Q.C., for Mallorie.
The counsel for the liquidators contended that Mallorie
was clearly liable, because he had applied for an allotment
of shares in the character of an agent to the executor
of ono of his relatives, who had been a shareholder in
the bank for some years. The shares wore allotted and
sent to the executors, and when the bank failed Mr. Peter
Mallorie alleged he was not liable to be:set down as a con-
tributor, on the ground that he was not an executor of
Matthew Mallorie, and that he never had the shares.
On the other side it was argued that Mallorie could not
be placed upon the list of contributors, because he was not
in such a position as to entitle him to have shares allotted
him. The resolution of the bank directors previous to the
allotment of the new shares was that none but existing
shareholders, or their executors, were to be entitled to the
new shares, which were then thought to be a valuable in-
vestment. Mr. Mallorie had never been in possession of
the shares, and it was relied on by his counsel that the
sending them to the executory of Mr. Mallorie's relative
was not sufficient to enable the liquidators to place his
name on the list of contributors.
His Honour went a great length into the various matters
connected with the case, and said he was of opinion, under
all the circumstances, that Mr. Mallorie's name must be
placed on the list of contributors.
OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO. (LIMITED).

The decision of the Vice-Chancellor in this matter re-
lating to the enforcement of the call made on Overend,
Gurney, and Company (Limited), will not be given until
half-past 3. We shall, if possible, publish it in our Late
Edition.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
:Sittings in Banco, before tho Lord Chief Justice and
• Justices Willes, Byles, and Keating.)
DUNN V. JAMES AND WIFE.
_ _

This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground that
the verdict was against the weight of evidence. It appeared
the case was hoard before Baron Martin and a verdict was
found for the defendants. The plaintiff held a farm under
a lease for seven years, and he took possession of it in the
early part of May, 1862. The defendant had previously
held the farm under a lease from year to year from a Mr.
Gibson, the proprietor of the property, who was now
dead. A Mr. Allen collected the rents, and at the
trial deposed that Mrs. James, who managed her husband's
business, came to him in the early part of 1862, and re-
quested him to allow her husband to become a weekly
tenant, as he was unable to pay the yearly rent. Ho con-
sented to do so, and received the rent in irregular instal-
ments, but he always considered it was paid on account
of weekly tenancy. However, the defendants ejected the
plaintiff and sold the growing crop, and when the plaintiff
brought his action the jury uonsuited him.
The rule nisi was granted.
JAMES T. THE GREAT :WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., moved for a rule nisi, calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why a verdict, which he bad ob-
tained for £2OO, should n b 3 set aside on the ground that

it was against the evidence.
The case was hoard before Mr. Baron Pigott at the last
assizes at Cardiff. The plaintiff was a working man, and
the action was brought to recover dathages for injuries
which lie sustained in crossing a footway some distance
from S wansoa. It appeared that the footway was traversed
by the company's train, and that there were no gates, but
stiles erectod on it. The evidence was to the effect that while
the plaintiff was crossing the footway about nine o'clock on
a very dark night he was struck by the tender of the com-
pany's train, which it was alleged should not have pre-
ceded but followed the engine.

Mr. Sergeant Byles—Did it obscure the light?

Mr. Gifford answered in the negative. Another ground
relied on was that the whistle had been discontinued, and
it was contended for the plaintiff that the company's ser-
vant should have kept continually whistling. (Laughter.)
For the defence it was argued that the accident was caused
by the plaintiff not keeping a proper look out, which
would have enabled him to see clearly so large a body
as a railway train approaching.
Rule granted.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Beforo Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
THE RIGHT OF MASTERS TO FINE SERVANTS.-WICKENDEN

T. SP}IGHT.

This was an action by a compositor against defendant, a
master printer, to recover wages which had been stopped
in tho shape of fines.
Mr. Buchanan, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated
that his client had been apprentice with defendant, and it
was agreed that after he came of age he should have half

his earnings.
His Honour asked to see the indentures, but finding that
the agreement was not sot forth in them pronounced them
bad, as they did not contain the whole bargain between
the parties.
Defendant's son, who represented defendant, said he had
another defence. Defendant had a most extensive busi-
ness, and printed many newspapers. Of course in an es-
tablishment of this kind every minute was of value, and it
happened that upon one occasion plaintiff was asked to do
a certain piece of work at once. He neglected to do this,
and was for this neglect was fined 2s. 6d., which fine was
afterwards reduced to is.
His Honour—By what authority did you fine him ls. ?
Defendant's Witness—It was the rule of the house.
His Honour—Had he agreed to it ?

Defendant—No.
His Honour—Unless he was a party to the contract as to
fines you had no right to enforce them.
Defendant's witness—But he was aware of the custom.
His Honour—That is no matter.
Mr. Buchanan—lf such a custom were allowed to pre-
vail no working printer in London would be safe.
His Honour ruled that defendant was not entitled to
fine his printers unless they agreed to his doing so, and
therefore the verdict would be for the plaintiff.

Verdict for tho plaintiff.
BESWELL V. STEVENSON.-PRINTERS. APPRENTICES.-

PORTANT QUESTION.

This was an action to recover wages, plaintiff being a
printer's apprentice, and defendant, for whom Mr. Hubert
Wood, of Basinghall-street appeared, a master printer.
Plaintiff said he bad been an apprentice with the defen-
dant, and ho was to have a certain sum every week after
ho came of age, the indentures running beyond that time.
He sought to recover 16s. for the last week he worked.
Mr. Wood cross-examined plaintiff with a view to show-
ing that plaintiff had left Mr. Stevenson against the con-
sent of that person.

Mr. Wood contended that plaintiff had no right to leave
the defendant until his indentures had run out.

Plaintiff—He told me to go.
His Honour did not consider that defendant had a right
to withhold tho wages.

Mr. Buchanan (for the plaintiff) said that the matter as
regarded the indentures would come to nothing, but Mr.
Wood said that his client had sued plaintiff in this court
on a previous occasion for breach of contract in reference
to those indentures, and another action, arising out of the
same cause, was still pending.
His Honour considered that as the wages were earned
they must be paid, and found for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the defendant.

ITER MAJESTY'S STAGHOUNDS.—To-day being
the first. public meeting of the season of the Royal pack,
the meet will be at Salthill, where, as is usual, a largo field
of sporting gentlemen from London and the surrounding
neighbourhood no doubt will assemble. Harry King we
hear has selected a slashing deer for this occasion in order
to insure, if possible, a good day's sport.
THE PRINCE OF WALES' HARRIERS.—On Thurs-
day the Prince's harriers hunted in the neighbourhood of
Staines, the meet being on the farm of Mr. P. Fowlers,
near Staines. There was a good field out, and after par-
taking of luncheon they soon found a hare, which gave
them a capital run of three-quarters of an hour, near Sir
John Gibbons's Park, Stauwell, turning to the right, over
Stanwell-lane, away to Staines Union, doubling back to
Stanwell Side-bar, where• she was killed. A brace more,
found on Mr. Merrick 's farm, afforded some pretty runs,
both hares being killed.
MISS BATE3IAN.—Miss Bateman, the actress, was
married at New York, a fortnight ago, to Mr.
Crow, a
14011C1P11 Surgeon.