The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-21 00:00:00

DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA.

The half-yearly report states that the receipts of
the company for the last half-year exceed those of
the corresponding part of 1857 by £1,171, while
the working expenses exceed those of the corre-
sponding period by £352, thus leaving an increase
of £Bl9 in the net receipts of the half-year. The
net profits of the half-year, after paying working
expenses, interest on loans, and dividends on pre-
ference shares, amount to £17,561. Out of
this the directors recommend a dividend of 335. 9d.
on each £75 share, and 1 ls. 3d. on each £25 share,
being at the rate of 41- per cent. per annum. This
dividend will amount to £12,755, and leave £4,805.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 19. '

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Baron Martin
and Special Juries.)
DALES V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

Mr. F. Smith and Mr. Littler were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Phinn, Q.C., and Mr. D. D.
Keane appeared for the company.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages by the plaintiff, who formerly was a porter
in the employment of the company, for false im-
prisonment.
After the case had occupied some time, the learned

judge said he was of opinion that the plaintiff had
no cause of action against the company, and directed
the plaintiff to be called.
He was nonsuited accordingly.
SOLOMON V. THE VINTNERS' COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Blackburn, and Mr.
Honeyman were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. D.
D. Keane and Mr. S. M'Culloch appeared for the
company.
This actiox was brought against the defendants
for so negligently pulling down certain houses that
the plaintiff's houses, which were adjoining, fell
down and demolished all his furniture and a very
extensive and valuable stock in trade. By the
terms of the plaintiff's lease he was liable to rebuild
the premises.

Alter the close of the plaintiff's case, his lordship
intimated that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, with
leave reserved to him to move to enter a verdict.,
the Court to have power to make any amendment
in the declaration that-might be necessary, and to
impose any liability upon the defendants that could
be imposed—if they were not liable upon the evi-
dence as it stood—and if liable, all questions to be
referred to arbitration, with liberty to discuss any
question of liability that might arise beyond that
decided by the Court, and to assess damages, if held
to be liable ; and, for the purposes of the motion, it
was to be assumed that the negligent removal of
the defendants houses caused the accident.

LANGTON AND ANOTHER V. lIIGGINS.
Mr. Atherton and Mr. Quain appeared for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Edward James, Mr. Leofric Temple,
and Mr. S. M'Culloch were counsel for the de-
fendant.

This was an action of trevor. A growing crop
of mint, to be produced in the autumn of 1858, and
to be converted into oil of peppermint, was assigned
by a person named Carter under a bill of sale given
in the beginning of the year to the plaintiffs, and
the question was whether under the words of the
bill of sale certain acts of appropriation on the part
of Mrs. Carter, the wife of the mortgagor, such as
bottling the oil and marking the bottles, vested the
property in the oil in the plaintiffs as mortgagees
before it was delivered to the defendant, to whom
Carter (who has gone to Australia) had sold and
delivered it. It was admitted that both the plain-
tiffs and the defendant had acted in perfect good
faith in the transaction.

Baron Martin, being of opinion that the moment
the oil was put into the bottles it became the pro-
perty of the plaintiffs, directed a verdict to be
entered for them for £714, with liberty reserved to
the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit or reduce
the verdict.