The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-09 00:00:00

NA3DE OF RAILWAY.

May 31
30

Jane 3

May 31

June 1
May 31

June 1
May 31

June 1
May 31
June 3
May 31

June 1
May 20

June 1
May 31
June 2

May 31

June 1
May 31

Arbroath and Forfar • . •• • .
Bristol and Birmingham • • • • • •
Chester and Birkenhead • • • .
Dublin and Drogheda.. ......... .....
Dublin and Kingstown • • • •
Dundee and Arbroath ••••••••••• • , • •
Durham and Sunderland ... • . • . • • • . • •
Edinburgh and Glasgow • •
Eastern Counties and North Eastern • •
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr • • • • • •
Glasgow and Green0ck......... • • • •
Grand Junction •• •• • ... •• • • • • • • , • •
Gravesend and Rochester.... .... • . • •
Great North of England .
Great Western.
Ilull and Selby • . .......

Liverpool and Manchester
London and Birmingham •. ..... -
London and Blackwall ••
London and Brighton.
London and Croydon . • ..... •. •
London and Greenwich •.... .....
London and South Western. • • •
Manchester, Bolton, and Bury ......
Manchester and Birmingham:.
Manchester, Leeds, and Hull Assoc••
Midland Counties. •• .
Newcastle and Darlington •• •• • • ••
Newcastle and Carlisle.. ........ .
Newcastle and North
No,tli Chi.' And Bolton and Preston
Paris, Corbel], amid Orleans•• ••••••••
Paris and Rouen .
Preston and Wyre•.....
Sheffield and Manchester........„
South Eastern ..... • _ .

Ulster .......
Yarmouth and Norwich
York and North Midland . ..

195
3,376

527
85S
1,40 i

247
2,577

1.625
18,900
1,219
5,553
17,930
1,328
4,f11;6
477
1,019
7,118

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, June 7.
The Lord Chancellor did not appear in Court yester-
day, but sat in his private room to hear the continnfttion
of arguments in the claim of the King of Hanover to the
Crown jewels.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, June 7.
BLAcKsToNE V. SIR P. LAURIE AND OTHERS.

This was an application to set aside an attachment on
the ground of irregularity. The circumstgnce arose out
of Mr. Blackstone, M.P., having accepted e bills of
exchange for 2001., 3001., and 5001., which were drawn
by a person named Rider. These hills were to stand as
security fur 5001. to be advanced to the lion. MenAer,
and which sum was to be raised through the medium of
the Union London Bail, of which the defendants were
proprietors. The bills got into the hands of the bank,
but .the plaintiff did not get the 5001., and when the bank
was proceeding to bring actions on the bills the plaintiff
filed a bill to restrain the actions on the ground that he
had no consideration. The irregularity complained of
had reference to the service of a subpoena on Mr. Boyd,
who, it was supposed, was mar ager of the bank, but who
at the period of the service of the subpoena at his former
residence was in New South Wales. This was the irre-
gularity complain, d of, r.nd the Vice-Chancellor held
that it was one.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 7.
WAKLEY V. HEALEY AND ♦NOTHER.

This was an action by Mr. Wakley, M.P., against the
proprietors ache Medical Times, for a libel published in
that paper, on the 25th of last January. The defendants
allowed judgment to go by default, and the object of the
present application, made upon affidavit, WAS to have the
qu,stion of damages tried by one of the Judges of that
Court, instead of the Under Sheriff of Mid,lesex, inas-
much as the plaintiff intended to put in other libels,
which appeared in the paper against him, and also on
the ground that serious questions of law would arise in
respect to the whole case, and likewisi, that the libel fur
which the present action was brought affected the
plaintiff in his p-blic character as a Member of Parlia-
ment and coroner fur Middlesex.
Mr. MARTIN and Mr. PARRY showed cause against
the rule, but
The Court made the rule absolute on all the grounds
urged by the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 7.