LAW NOTICES.—THIS DAY

... ?? 1 % N ? , j , t , , I, '. , ?? 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ A 1 ?? ?? TI: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C * .- /1 ?? ?? V AXt . ~ * riO-n- *12t1i~n i 2(_- I,: t flI.' 'C 1 ?? ff.41T T tt 01 t~e ttrt$'h Christian toCI th~ 1CC. lit 812 'II) .I.I~sI) ri! ?? lt )w- aer, I-tj, titci,I .72 It ?? ' , IJ Itwittid- ;z v IC. ?? ~~c, -it ?? ga ailb Ut/ ?? .12 4w I'v *I tfv~p I* hate ?? p ffjjm Cdtr-.Armv tui LI L an th ...

TRIAL OF CALLAN

... TRIAL OF CALU AN. ft CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. COMPOSITION OF THE JURY. A NATIVES 01. TUE TIOCIC. TH? ItPVOLVER STOi?cY. IMPORTANT EViDENCE. It (rican suit OIBItALTAU CofltUtsroNn32?'r.'; Never' hnir; Gibraltar witnessed a more thrilling C case than tire no-called Tangier murder ease. ? The law court, a building with twin colonnades rc of the Doricorder', began ar? an inscription tiilis'tie ...

TEMPLE CLOUD POLICE COURT

... -TExvPL ~ CLOD POICE OURT ~ThBIPLE CLOUD POLICE COURT. ..A . Is ?? . YESTIRD]AY. bor Before Messrs S.,S. P. Sambourne (in tbe chair), pea 1. B, P. 8Sarlbouirne, Edward Strachoy, M., and ma CA. A;emble. all ?? TO QUIT. ten Edward Parsons, of Clutton, was summoned for hoc being disorderly and refusing to quit the licensed wT] ptemises of Frederick Carter on July 30th. Mtr ha J1.1. G. Sandford ...

BRISTOL POLICE COURT

... YES rE li) AY. !witre .\lderman (C. Townsend and Mr A. Lee. S1 l M.lN(; i (MtODS FROM sut0m's. kanli kilvy, 18, and Alico Davis, 18, avera c a gtd %%itb stealing a number of umbrellas, .1:5- sill; atidhncdliirs, a pair of boots, and .: ar dris ?? Mlargarct Gardiner, or Wilkinson, * Amn-i withi receiving several brushes, m ild Filke halindk hioril'is, lnowing ther t ii, aind Jrlartili H-lassey, ...

BRISTOL POLICE COURT

... v*q1;TvnnAV YESTERDAY. Before Alderman Jose and Mr J,-1,.llowell. AT'VEM1'TED 'TO rGltOY. Thomas William Beer, 17, -was charged: with forgiug an endorsement.upon. areceipt and:acknowv- ]ledgment of a Payment of. m oney by wvay of an order for £470, ith intent thereby to defraud. Detective q spector Robertson said teat when defendant was plpaced in the dock. at the police cow ,-and- ch arged I ...

MR. HOOLEY'S DISCLOSURES

... MR, 11OOLEYS DISCLOSiTR ES ! ?? FRSTL iDEVYELOPMENT. THE ALLEGED HUSH-MONEY. t ACTION IN THE HIG1H COURT. StRONG REMARRiS BY THE JUDGE. A CASE FOR NO DELAY. I ILLNESS OF MR. HOOLEY. it the Quevn's BDntnf Divisioa. yesterdaky, before Mr. V Justice Wright, rn applimtiaiu war heard, which haed beea specially set down for beariag upon the report of MIr. ?? llood, aud iad refereace to an alaegod ...

PARIS TOPICS

... PARPIS TOPICS. GENERA]L BILLOT AND IDEMYFUS. I THIE BOGUS CRIME ATND THE REAL' BURNING OF A 'BRETON TOWAN. NEW hTOME FOR THLE CIAMBER. (rmox OUR CoOIIRSPOstNDOENT.) PARIS, Wednesdlay Night. Tho heat to--day vas again fierce. The. ther- ?? Dlliefer l riur eke ill thle sbhrvc at two r cloek 91 I degreni, bnt,{ his ev-ening tbhore were cool cnurrents of air. There were fi-csh cases of suonsroke. ...

COURT OF SESSION

... COURT 01T SESSION. BILL HA1:ER-Friday; Augost19.t -, . ( . Before Lord Fearaonj . 'TUEX COLLAMSI 0f AN DiNBUR2GE nE-Msr: I * 14& Persn tadA beica him in ,te Bill OCamber a bill rosented by David Goldsaton, .c5ver inaigilder, 105 Nicolson Street, Edinurgh, for letters of inhibition .an'ainst JohnD rever, draper, SO0 Nicolson..Street, It-cinhurgh, to inhibit himn fbr parting.in any-wa.y.with any ...

COURT OF SESSION

... I COURT OF -SESSION. OUTEZ HOUSE-Wednesday, gA 34 (Befo ord KyEllacy.) CLASGOW DECURANTaR.Q MMIAM CASE. Judgment was given in the action 70y 3Irq Mathieson. Connel or icks, '13 pialar- Dennistoun, Glasgow, against Wilhin Rie lately carrying on business as a Photographeraa accountant in Union Street, Glasgow, and elm against John Hicks, residingtat 261 par.ae, tary- Road, Glasgow, and James ...

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE

... BREACH OF PROMISE CASE, A BONNIE LAD'S FICKLE AFFECTION. AT Leeds Assizes an interesting breach of promise action was heard, plaintiff being Louisa Schellenberg, dressmaker, of Brad- ford, and defendant Edwin Horsfall, wool buyer and salesman. The parties ?? known each other for many years. Plaintiff was twenty-five years of age, and defendant thirty-five. Defendant's salary was stated at ...