The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 31, 1868

SHARE LlST.—This Day.

ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS.

Share! Railways. ! Closing
Paid' Price. Business
done.
e-L
of and kxeter .... 100 81 13
st Caledonian -„, • 100 72 73 72 11
st Cambrian
- Cork and Bandon - - -
20 4.)ornwall all 3 4
st Dublin & Belfast June lOO 75 77
at Dun„Perth,&Ab.Junc lOO 70 72
- E.London, Scrip Cezti all - -
Do. 100 -
at Glasgow &S. Western 100 102 101
st Great Eastern, Ord. stk. 100 3'4 313, 34 31
et Do. E. Angl. st. No. 2 100 6 8
at • (ireat North of Scotland 100 15 64
at Great Northern lOO 102, 1031 34 31
at Du. A stock . 100 96 V 8 1964
st Do. 13 stock lOO 121 1/5
st Do. New, Is. at 25 pm 100 - -
at GtS, and W. 01 Ireland 100 91 93 95
st Gt. Western -Original 100 46 19 491
at Du. S. V4l. Rail gua. 100 - -
't Do. South Wales
st Do. W: Mid.-Oxiord 100 25 3u
at Do. Newport lOO 45 28
st uo. ereford - -
et Lancashire& YorkahirLi 100 1251 i 25,
et I..indon and Blackwali' luo - -
st Lon., Brig-h.,& S Coa,tl 100 50 51 50; 1
st 1•on., Chat., and Dover 100 19 191
at Do. Metrop. Ex. A lOO 12 15
st Lon. & .North Westeri, leo 1114 115'_1 11
st Lon. A South lVeStert, 10e 8 • 87
at Man., Sher., A Lincoln 100 421 13, 411
at Atetropplitan.....
at Do. New lO - -
st Do. Extewion
st $ Metropolitan District all 73 75 741 31
20 Uo. do. do. 10 --
10 Du. and St. Jolin'aW'u 6 - -
at Midland
- Do. £9 Share 7 - ---
st Do, tiirmin.. & Derb) 100 73 75
- Oid Kent - -
st North British
at Do. Ed., Pth., & Dun, 100 - -
st Nth. Eastern-Berwick 100 1011 1011
25 Do. G.N•E put-chant 16.13.3 - -
at Do. Leads
st Do. York lOO 13 91
at Du. Carlisle . , ... 100 124 132
at Do. Stock.& Darling, all 129 131
15 Do. do. 1860-61 lB -•--
at North London
st Do. do. 1864 5 -
Do. do. 1866
10 North Staffordshire 100 57 59
st N. &S. W. Junction
at Scottish Central -
- Scot. N. E . Aber. stock NO
uu. Scot, Mid. stack lOO -
- Shropshire Union
at South Devon lOO 43 45 ,
at South Eastern
10 Staines, Wok., A Wok all 9 1u
st Cad- Vale
10 Do. C -
- V ale of Neatli - -
- Waterford & Kilkenny 101) - -
10 Waterloo & IVllltelia 1 6 -
Cornwall - - -
BRITISII. YUSSESSIONS.
100 it Anotinlan3icarAoSdta.ollacwerne.nione. all 64 66
100 1021 10341 .031 4
gu. 6 per cont..
40 Do. F shares l6 1 1p
101 Buffalo A Lake Huron all 3 4
10 Do. Preference
IButL, Brant, Goderich
100 6 p.c. 1871-3-1 IVO 68 71
at Calcutta &S. E., lint lOO - -
at ;al c Town & Dock, gu lOO 14 52
00 Demerara, 7 p.c. per. pi all 99 102
at v.:itat Beng-al, gu., sdo 100 1011 1654 1054
at East Indian, gu. 5 p.c. 100 109 110
40 Do. J Extension - -
st irand Trunkof Canada 100 151 164
100 Do. Equip. Mort, Bonds
1 charge 6 p.c all 74 82
100 Do. Ist Prof. Bonds all 43 45
100 Do. do deferred -
100 De. 2d Pref. Bombs all 33 35
100 Du. do. deterred - -
100 Do. 3d Pref. stock all 27 29
100 Do. do. deferred - -
100 Do. 4th Pre!. stock
100 Do. do. deterred - -
at ut. India Pen. gua. sp.c lOO 109 110 log
/3 o. Gua. 5 per cent lB 14 2 p
10 Do. New gua. sp. c 6 14 2 p
at ,41. South of India
gua. 5 per cent
st D.. 41 per cent loo 94 06
st Do • 2 - -
204 ;rest Wes. of Canada all 161 161 154
204 Du, New ...... ; alt - --
00 Do. 6p.ußt a. pay. 1873', all 98 100
06 00. 54 do. pay. 1877-8 all 91 93
at Madras, gua. 5 p.o 100 100 102 1021
st Do. 41 do lOO 93 95
at Do. 14 do lOO 69 91
10 Do. Fifth Extension 5 -
st Melb. Cor. 6p. c. Blida. 100 - -
50 Mel. A Ilobson's Bay all -
Sr N.R.l.C'da.6pclstpLbs 100 83 65
at Oude&Rhiik'nd, g. 5 p,o 100 103 104 104
st Scinde 100 100 101 1
at Do. Delhi
.1100 1001 1014, 1011
20 Do. do 4, 15
BE Do. Punjaub.... 5,4 100 10) 101 P
st Do.lndus St.Flot 4° 100 a 7 89

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

CITY OF LONDON COURT.
(Before R. M. Kerr, Esq.)
CAB PROPRIETORS AND LUGGAGE.-DIERDON V

WARD.

This was an action to recover £l7 10s., the
value of a portmanteau and its contents, which had
been stolen from the top of the defendant's cab.
➢lr. Dowse, for the plaintiff, stated that on the
morning of the 26th December last, Mr. Dierdon
hired the defendant's cab and gave into the care of
the driver the porttnanteau in question. It was
stolen from the roof of the cab in the Southwark-
bridge-road, and a person was now undergoing a
sentence of five years' penal servitude for being
concerned in the robbery.

His honour asked how defendant coul d be made

liable.

Mr. Dowse stated that the case of Powles v.
Ilyder, 20 and 25, Law Journal, was a case in point,
and it was there laid down that the owner of the
cab was the person to be sued for negligence.
his honour wished to know on what legal grounds
defendant could be made liable at all.
Mr. Dowse contended that there was a contract
between plaintiff and defendant for the safe carriage
of the luggage, and the defendant's driver bad
charged 2d. for the portmanteau.
His Honour replied that what he wanted
to arrive at was whether any negligence could
be traced to the defendant's driver. There was
a case of Ross v. Hill, second Common Bench
887, where it had been decided that the
cab proprietor was not a common carman
within the meaning of the term, and that the
only obligation on him was that he should use
ordinary care. It was for the plaintiff to show that
there had been negligence.

Mr. Dowse then called evidence to show that the
cab was provided with a guard and chain. The
guard had been put up, but the cabman admitted he
had not used the chain, as he was not obliged to do
so. He had been desired to take care of the port-
manteau, and he had taken ordinary care. The
fact was that the morning of the 26th December
was a very foggy one, and some thieves connected
with the " thieves' bazaar," which had been
recently discovered, had stolen the trunk
from the top of the cab. He (the cab-
man) could not help it, as it was so dark at the
time. He had never lost anything before this. He
had driven for 32 years.
It having been urged for the defendant that a
cab proprietor was not liable, under the act, as a
common carrier,

Mr. Dowse quoted the case of Morley and Dunt,
reported in the Law Times, which laid down that
the owner of a cab was liable for any loss
of property occurring through negligence, and his
honour said he should take time to consider his
judgment, and to read the case of Ross v. Hill,
which bore very strongly on the present case.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-THIS DAY

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A PENNY FlNE.—Catherine Quick, a young
woman, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with
wilfully breaking a pane of glass, at No. 28, Saville-
street, Foley street, the property of William Wood,
rustic-worker.

The complainant, an elderly man, said that he
was a married man, but had had the indiscretion to
visit the prisoner, but was now anxious to discon-
tinue the connection. Yesterday between four and
five o'clock, the prisoner knocked at my door
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Then your wife has found out
what has been going on ?

The complainant said she had, and the prisoner
scratched him, broke the window, made a great
disturbance, and threatened everybody.
The prisoner said the complainant the night
before that kept her out all night. He had lived
with her after she left her situation, and was the
cause of all her misfortunes.

Air. Tyrwhitt told the prisoner that she must not
act as she had done. She would have to pay the
damage, but under the circumstances only a penny
fine.

TIIE STREETS TRAFFIC ACT. —George 'Smith,
carman to a coal merchant, and George Harris,
carman to a brewer, were summoned before Mr.
Tyrwhitt, under the Metropolitan Streets Traffic
Act, the first named for unlawfully delivering coals
in Pall-mall, and the other beer in New Bond-street
at a time within the limits of the Act.
Smith pleaded guilty.

The case having been proved against Harris,
A person stepped forward and said he represented
the defender Harris's employers, and that they had
no wish to infringe the act, but at the same time
they the commissioners of police might have given
them notice before summoning them.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said that as they were the first
summonses under the new act, he should only ia-
pose a fine of ss. in each case.

him a violent blow with his fist on the mouth,
which actually dislodged one tooth and broke another.
The two constables immediately collared the pri-
soner, who entered into a long and desperate struggle
with them. It required four men to secure him,
and remove him to the station-house.

• The prisoner denied having struck Dewell at all.
Mr. Benson—Who did strike him ? Look at his
mouth, which is cut, and one of his teeth gone.
George Birch, No. 267 K, confirmed the state-
ment of Dewell.

Mr. Benson said there was no doubt whatever the
prisoner had committed a savage and malicious
assault on the constable because he acted
the part of a peace-maker, and prevented
the prisoner killing his wife. He was considering
whether he ought not to commit the prisoner for
trial for this brutal and unprovoked outrage. Ile
could not punish the prisoner for this outrage as he
ought to be punished. Ile sentenced the prisoner
to be imprisoned for two months and kept to hard
labour, which was the heaviest punishment he could
inflict.