The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-21 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 21, 1859.

FOREIGN

iorisce in.g
Bus
Shareßailways. jraid.' Cr Done. ess

Share

20
20.
100 1
100
190

17i
20
,S tocL

Sto. [

2200
.1
100
100
100
100

stook

Antwerp & Rotterdam,
Ardennes
Bah.&S.Fran,Lim.7p.c
Belgian East. Junction
Beziers to Graissessaa
Carmeaux Mine &
Dutch Rhenish
Eastern of France .
Euphrates Valley
Great Central of France
Luxeir., Con. shs
Italian Junctlon
Lake Constance & Bale
Lierre and Turnhout
Lombardo Venetian
Lucca & Pistoja, 5 p.c.pf
Lyons and Genera
Maria Antonia
Do. do. New

Namur and Liege
Do. do. 6 p. c. Pref
Northern of France
Do. New Shares
Norwegian Trunk Pref
Ottoman, gua. fi per cent
ParicLyous, and Medit.
Paris and Orleans
Recife& S. Fran. (Pern )
gua. 7 p. et. (Lim.)
Riga and Dunabur,;
Rome and Frascati
Royal Danish
Royal Swedish
Do. 7 per cent. Pref.
Sambre and Meuse
Do. 5i per cent. Pref.
Southern or France
West Flanders
Do. 51 p. c. Pre:arence
W. k N.W. of France
Western of Austria
Western of Switzerlar d
Wiesbr den
Do 8 per cent. Pref
Zealand

4; 5

P
d par
I*
• 8

4 4
261 27

- Pi

7 71

11 •. lip'

371 218
37;
—P
81 9i
3 1 d
331 33/
51 a 3
id par

21 211
vr 6
9v-- 9.,
24 24

33a

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS D 417.)

COURT OF. CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)
APPEAL.-HAVILAND V. MORTIBOY.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel in this
cause, yesterday afternoon, their lordships reserved judg-
ment.

It is expected judgment will be delivered on an early day.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

APPEAL:-STEWART V. JONES.-PRIVILEGE OF THE BAR.

Mr. James, Q.C., objected to Mr. Rolt, Q.C., taking
precedence in addressirig the Courtsin opening the appeal
in this ease, in respect that it was not an appeal from a
decision of the whole cause, but a declaration on a small
part of the cause onl. _ _

Mr. Rolt, Q.C., said that his right to be heard first had
been settled by precedents and by the practice of the
Court.

Mr. James, Q.C., did not insist on the objection, and Mr.
Rolt proceeded to address the Court.
This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir
W. P. Wood, declaring that the gift by the testator to his
daughter lapsed by the death of the daughter in the life-
time of the testator.

Mr. Rolt, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Beaven, contended
that'the intention of the testator was to benefit the issue of
his children whether his children pre-deceased him or not.
Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Hetherington were heard for
the respondent. Mr. Beaven, in the absence of Mr. Rolt,
was heard in reply.

The Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said—
There could be no doubt whatever as to what the legal
construction of the will was. It was well settled by the
Vice-Chancellor, and hecould not come to an opposite con-
clusion.

Mr. James, Q.C., did not ask costs.
The Lord Chancellor dismissed the appeal without costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice, Sir A. Cockburn.)
THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY V. SCOTT.

Mr. Sergeant Shee this morning moved for a rule calling
upon the plaintiff to shove cause why a verdict should not
be entered for -the defendants. It will be recollected that
the cause was tried at the sitting before last term, when a.
verdict was given for the plaintiff, but leave was granted.
by the Lord'Chief Justice to the defendants, the executors
of the late Earl of Shrewsbury, to move for a rule to enter
the verdict for defendants. The point in dispute was,
whether the present Earl of Shrewsbury, who had but lately
obtained the title, was also entitled to the vast estates be-
longing to the earldom. The property for a long period had
been held by Roman Catholics, in accordance with the will
of the first earl ; but in 1719 an act of Parliament was passed
in favour of Gilbert, the then Earl, who was a Protestant,
empowering Protestants, notwithstanding the will of the
first earl, to hold the property in succession. It was con-
tended the act of 1719 was of non-effect, as Gilbert, the
then earl, had no right to apply to Parliament for such a
purpose. The learned sergeant went into a variety of
details, proving the pedigrees of certain of the early holders
of the title, and concluded by moving for the rule in accord-
ance with the directions of the learned Judge.
The Court granted the mule.

captain of a ship, and gave his address Green's Hotel, East
Indite-road, Poplar. He selected several articles to the
amount of £2O, and then requested that some watches and
chains should be shown to him. He selected a gold lever
watch, and requested it might be put by for him. There
were four watches in the tray when Mr. Spiegethaller first
produced them, and he only found two when one was put
away. The prosecutor said he had missed one, and the
prisoner admitted one was gone. After a long parley the
prosecutor sent for a policeman, and the prisoner immedi-
ately left the shop and ran across, the road. Mr. Spiege-
thaller fired a pistol and gave an alarm, and the prisoner,
who knocked down several persons in the pursuit, was
overtaken, and after a desperate resistance secured. In his
defence, ho expressed his regret that he had not a knife with
him, or he would have finished a few of the people who
laid hold of him.

Mr. Yardley remanded the prisoner for a week.

A NUISANCE IN LIMEHOUSE.—Mr. John Scott, inspec-
tor of nuisances to the Limehouse District Board of Works,
applied to Mr. Yardley for a summons against Signor Pinto
Perez, an Italian chemist, for carrying on a nuisance in
St. Anne-street, Limehouse, which had been complained
of by the inhabitants of the district.

Mr. Yardley—Do you make this application on the part
of the Board of Works ?

Mr. Scott—Yes, sir.

Mr. Yardley—What is the nuisance ?
Mr. Scott—lt consists of a manufacture of acetic acid,
sugar of lead, and a very offensive nuisance was calmed by
the escape of acetic and other noxious vapours into the at-
mosphere, to the prejudice of the comfort and health of the
inhabitants.

Mr. Yardley—You want a summons for the owner to
show cause why the nuisance should not be suppressed ?

Mr. Scott—Yes, sir.
Mr. Yardley—Take your summons.
PROTECTION FOR A LEGACY—SINGULAR APPLICA-
TION.—Mrs. Letitia Rosamond Maitland, a very respect-
able and engaging young woman, applied to Mr. Yardley
for an order of protection for her earnings and also to
prevent her husband, who had deserted her, from depriv-
ink her of £lOO, a legacy bequeathed to her.
Mr. Yardley—When did your husband desert you ?
The applicant said that she was living at 16, Bedford-
street, Commercial-road East, and her husband, Christopher
Maitland, deserted her six years ago and went to Australia.
She heard from her husband four years ago and was not
aware whether he was now alive or dead. A legacy of
£lOO had been left to her, and she wished to enter into busi-
ness with the money, but the executors refused to pay the
money to her until she obtained a protecting order.
lir. 'Yardley said the applicant deserved a prtipting
order, and directed one to be made out forthwith. It wouldbe
hard indeed if the husband made his appearance in London
to seize the little fortune of his wife after he had abandoned
her for six years.

Mrs. Maitland thanked the magistrate, and retired.

IBEL4ND.

DUBLIN, THURSDAY MORNING.
THE LAW APPOINTMENTS.

There appears to be still some doubt with respect
to the new judicial appointments. The Freeman
of this morning repeats the old rumour, that the
seat in the Exchequer has been offered to, and
accepted by, Mr. Francis Fitzgerald—an admirable
selection, if the Government have really made it.
The Solicitor-General, it is again notified, is to
succeed Mr. Justice Crampton in the Court of
Queen's Bench. Saunders's Newsletter, generally
well informed on local affairs, corroborotes the
foregoing statement. The. Castle paper (the Ex-
press), which on Saturday last semi-officially denied
the report of Judge Crampton's retirement, this
morning confirms the above announcement, and
adds that the resignation of the learned judge has
been placed in the hands of Government.

THIS DAY'S MARKETS.