The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIN c. FEBRUARY 14, 1863.,

85 $7
76 77
20 30

3 4
746 756
70 72

100 1(2
30 rit
0i 71
15 0
108 ‘OO
119 110
1221 143

leo
10u
liu

V 6 9i
40

45 47
3..)
29 3.

N5l

4t) 4tl)
• 18t 11l
11 14 ;
10 ;14
87 t 9
i 2 13
ilO 111 ;

flueiness
thme.

77 64

301

IS;9
114

47 CI

19. i
t 54 ,
42
,071 8

1001 1

10,4 7i

721 i 3

LAW INTELLIGE TOE—This Day.

THE POWER OF RAILWAY DIRECTORS TO ISSUE DEDMT-
TURES.—In the suit of Fountaine v. the7Carmarthen and
Cardigan Railway Company, Vice-Chancellcr Wood was
called upon to decide what ought to be done with a number
of debentures which had been issued by the company when
the full amount they had authority to raise had been bor-
rowed. The case involved a very nice point, and one of
great importance both to shareholders in railways and
those who advance money for them on debentures. The
directors of the line in question had issued a debenture
for £5OO beyond the limits of the borrowing powers of the
company. Subsequently two debenture - creditors ob-
tained judgment and issued execution, • seizing on
the property. The directors, then issued other
debentures, and paid cf these debts. .The ques-
tion was whether those debentures were valid.
By the Act it is provided that power should be vested in
the directors to renew debentures and to issue new deben-
tures to the amount of those paid cif. This power is, how-
ever, to be exercised under certain limits, the consent of a
general meeting of shrxcholders being neeessain except
in the case where the money is borrowed to pay off old
debentures.—His Honour held that the debentures issued
subsequent to the payment of the old dAenturcs were
valid, • notwithstanding that the general meeting of the
shareholders had.. not been - convoked. The debentnr es
issued in excess cf the 'borrowing powers of the company
he held to be void.

NON-DELIVERT OF MACTIINE7.7. —At the Nisi Prigs
sittings of the Court of Common Pb.as, Guildhall, the
case of the British Columbia Saw Mills Company v.
Nettleship has for two days occupied the attention of
Lord Chief Justice Bovill and a special jury. It
was an action to recover damages for loss sustained
by the non - delivery of some machinery. The
plaintiffs in the spring of 1865 chartered the defen-
dant's ship Kent to carry to Vancouver Island some
machinery to set tip a steam saw-mill there. The ship-
Ment was to be made partly at Liverpool, but the
bulk of the machinery was to be received from
lessrs. Forrest and Barr, engineers, at Glasgow.
The value of the machinery was about £5,500, and there
was to be a lump sum of £1,225 for 350 tons of freight,
with £3 10s. per ton for extra freight. The machinery
was placed in packages, and one of these, which was
numbered 43 in one list and 46 in another, never
arrived at its destination. This particular package
was 9 feet long by 2 feet broad and deep ;
it weighed 2i tons, and contained spindles and
other pieces of machinery, which were worth at Vancouver
Isla,nct £5OO, and without which the remainder of the
machinery would be useless. The plaintiff laid before the
the jury a great deal of evidence to shew the way in which
the shipment of the various packages had been checked.
According to the documents, the package 43 appeared to
nave been shipped, and the mate's receipt had been given for
it. The defendant's counsel called no witnesses, but submitted
that the box was of such a size and weight that it could
not well have been lost or mislaid, and that if it had been
placed on board in the Clyde it must have been found on
board at Vancouver Island. He also commented upon the
fact that it appearedupontheplaintiff's evidence that there
had been a mistake in reference to the shipment of one
package, and that the lists of packages appeared to have
various alterations and corrections in them ; and he sub.
mitted that this might account for the package 43 appear-
ing in the lists as having been shipped when in fact it had
not been.— The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. —The
Lord Chief Justice said that he perfectly agreed with the
finding.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—An action in the
QUeen's Bench, Jackson v. Smith, has been tried at the
Sheriff's Court, Red Lion-square, for a breach of promise
of marriage. The plaintiff alleged that she " was ready
and willing to marry" the defendant, and he would not.
She laid her damages at £l,OOO. The defendant did not
appear, but it came out that he had lately married " very
comfortably off," and kept cabs. The parties had resided
at Kensington, and did not appear to be very young. The
jury assessed the damages at £6O.
HEAVY COMPENSATION CLAIM.—A compensation case,
Leech v. the Metropolitan Board of Works, was heard
before Mr. Tinder-Sheriff Burchell. The claim exceethd
£B,OOO, and was for property at Kensington, to make some
important public improvements in that locality. After a
view, a verdict by consent was agreed upon for £5,000.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

:GRAVESEND, Friday Morning.

Arrived, Feb.lo.—Granton, steamer, from Hamburg.
Arrived, Feb. 14.—Jubilee, steamer, from Guernsey;
Shangtung, from Table Bay ; Souvenir, steamer, from
Caen ; Brownlow, steamer, from Hull, for Rio Janeiro.
Sailed—Neva, steamer, for Dunkirk ; Cologne, steamer,
for Boulogne.
DEAL, Friday Morning.
Passed, Feb. 13.—Delta, screw steamer, from London,
for Bordeaux.
Sailed—Renata, of Hull, in tow, for London, to repair
damage sustained by being on shore on tho Goodwin
Sands on the 11th inst.