The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-15 00:00:00

40 0 0
40 0 0

C is. kJ IL I.S.

.. ..•
, Dividenu
Names of it Dividend Price. .• I per p
Companies. ;1 per Names of
Companies. .1 4nnutt• , Mee'
c Annum. • so ,
--..—.---..
Z £\
kshtn& Oldh 97 71. 113 Macclesfield • 100 21. 10s. 50
Barnsley.. • • 160, 121. 180 Neatk ......100 16:.. 340
iZrknk&Abrg 150 51. 85 Oxford.. •• • • 100, 20/, 185
,tirmingham 40 41. • 26 Peak Forest. 70 !N. 18s. 10
Coventry.... 100! 251. 2CO Regent's .• • • 331 11. Os. 11134
Derby ••• • • 100 61. 68 Rochdale.... 25 ' 41. 42
llsinre&Chs 133 355. 267 Somrset Coal 150 i 71.105.
4randlunctn 100 41. 68 Do.Lk Fd St 12161. p. c.
Do., 6 pr. Ct. 734 814 Stift,' &Worc 1401 481. 405
ilrand Surrey 100 21. Os. 33% Shrewsbury.. 1251
rand Union 100 it. 108. 24 Stottrbrldg... 145 201. 290
Kenut & Avn 39 7s. tit. Severn and
Lancaster . 100 41. 32 Wye Reid 21. Os. 24
26
/cots& Livrp 200 241. 325 Warwick& 1 151.
'.eicester .. • • :100 &l. 66 Idirming. 1 100 41. 64%
.elcstr &Nth; 83 41. 4834 Warwick& }
Lou LI I, horegh : 142 701. 510 Napton.. 100 31. 42
{ionmouttishlloo 81. Worcstr /4}
Antg.mrysh j 100 Birming. 78 31. 40%
Aeltnl4lwhry 100 Wilts Ilk Brks 1111. 6%

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BiIiVKRUPTCY, Nip,. 14.
(BOor: Mr. Cumini*.ioner 110LROYD.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF lOSEPH JARDINE.—THE

DARTFORD SA%INGB BANK.
There was a nee-ting rhr the proof debts in this
matter. The ba*,krupt appropriated to his own pug Toses
2 100/, the mone;,s cf tIIP Darttord Saving*-bank, of
which establishment he was actuary. The court was to-
day crowded with depositors, for the most part persons
in a bumble conaion of lite, who sought to prove the
aincurt of their deposits against the estate. The prin-
ciple which regulated those proofs was, that where the
moneys were handed by the depositors to the bankrupt
individually, not during bAnk hours nor in the bank, the
claims were provable against his asiets; but where they
paid them to the bankrupt during bank hours in the
bail, and as its officer, they could not prove; for the
Court held that in the latter case the trustees were
answerable. The trustees, it Ain he recollected, sought
to prove for the bankrupt's defalcations against his
estat ; but the Commi,sioner, in an elaborate jwigment
(sine, affirmed by the Vice Cnancellor), decided against
*lieu claim.

A sub,criptioti, amounting to more than 1,0001., has
been raised by the t entry of Kent for the purpose of
paying the poor depositor,.
The whole sum prov, d to-day was about 1501. •
Mr. Jones appeared for the re,,ognee,, Mr. Lawrance
for the depositor:, and Mr. Linklater tor the bankrupt,
wheat, certificate meeting takes place in a f-w days.
A meeting tor last examination in ti.e mater of W.
Mayer. Iliteman's-row, Shoreditch, who it is said tailed
fur 50 000/, was adjourned, the balance-sheet not being
in readiness.

INSOLVENT DEB FOl(S' COURT, Nov. 14.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSL NER.)
IN RE CHARLES PATERNOSTER.
This insolvent, who was fotmnily proprietor of !he
Nag's H. ad, Leal her-lane ; the 01) filpic Stores, Strand;
und the Green Dragon wine-vaults, Btshopsgate, applied
for his discharge. The debts in the schedule amounted
to nearly 1,0001.

Mr. Duticdti supported.
One of the creditors, a Mr. Richardson, opposed.
He held an receptance, which he received in payment
f,r rent; but it appeared that the insolvent had left
sufficient goods in the house to pay the rent, the bill
being given merely to prevent a distress on the goods,
which were all ultimately left in the house, consequently
he (the opposing creditor) had no claim on the insolvent.
Mr. Si ard, another creditor, also oppi.sed. He had
placed a sum of money in the hands of the insolvent as
security for his performing the duty of managing one of
Mr. Paternoster's houses.

A young man, named Thomas Harris, lately in the
employ of Mr. Duncan, made a most remarkable state-
ment against the insolvent. He stated that Mr. Pater-
noster had secured to himself, by the assistance of his
sister and uncle, a large sum of money in the funds,
which he had defrauded his creditors of.
The sister and the uncle (a most respectable gentle-
man from the Royal Exchange Assurance Office) both
positively denied the statement of Harris.
Very strong evidence was given to proved that Harris
had made the false assertion for the purpose of extort-
ing money from the insolvent.
The case caused a great deal of excitement in the
court (it being the third adjournment), and occupied
the court for a considerable time.
Mr. lluxcA,N, in a most eloquent address to the court,
commented on the many losses Mr. Paternoster had sus-
tained, one of which was attributed to the loss of his
licence at the Nag's Head, Leather-lane, on the simple
complaint of a neighbour, whereby his house was closed
for some time, and he put to great expense in appealing
against the decision of the licensing :magistrates. He
had also been engaged in many speculations, tilting up
public.houses, Ito., and being unsuccessful in letting the
same, was a considerable I,,ser. He concluded his ad-
dress by stating that one glance at the insolvents sche-
dule was sufficient to perceive that Mr. Paternoster's
crosses and misfortunes occurred to him from circum-
stances over which he had no control.
The insolvent was discharged forthwith.