The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-06 00:00:00

school-yard on the return of the procession, and the flag flou-
rixhed before the window of the election-chamber.
" N.B. No carriages, except those of the Royal Party, and
of the Provost, Fellows, and Head-master, can be admitted to
Weston's-yard until the Royal party have left the yard.
" Officers of the Bow-street Police will be on duty at Eton
and Salt Hill."

Mar,
AN.

3chal
ON,

Espinasse
Lyon, ma.
Lyon, mi.

Layton
Hale
Mr. Coke
!!ANS.
)tain
lAMS,
Peel
Mr. Stuart
Hamer

Cal
WILI

Edwards
Temple
Mulcaster
Stuart

Forster

Seijeant Major
BULLOCK,
Whitehead
Serjeants

TARVER, ma.
Marquis of Drogheda
YOUNG,
Sumner

TALM AN,
Ph clips
HAWT RE Y,
Chichester
Lord G. MANNERS,
Marquis of Worcester
JOHNSON, ma.
Lord Nelson
De St. CROIX, ma.
Gordon, mi.
MANSFIELD,
Gordon, ma.
TILLE.
Gl ecr.e
.ht, mi.
men.
Grenside
Baventock

HARTOPP,
Greathead

PICKERING,
Lord Tullamore
CUST, ma.
De Bathe
COTTON,
Jones

Mr. S A

Clay ton, East, ma.
Arkwrig
Pole

Monck
Robart3

MUSICIANS.

Ens'gn.
WESTMACOTT,

Mr. Lawless
Jenkins

Chichester
I
Dodson

MUSICIANS.
Lieutenant
BIRCH.

Bradshawe
Sturt

I Mr. Henley
Mr. Barrington, mi.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jun 5.
THE QUEEN V. GOODBURN. . . .

Lord DENMAN delivered judgment in this case, which was
an appeal against a conviction under the Pawnbrokers' Act,
for taking interest higher than the rate of 4d. per month for
the loan of 205., cr 20 per cent. on the sum lent. The sum
lent was in this case 45., and the defendant took 2d. more
than the rate of interest allowed by the Act of Parliament. But
an ingenious argument was raised for the defendant to this
effect, that the :39th and 40th of George 111., considered the
sum as advanced for each month, and as entitling the lender
to take interest for each month in succession ; and as the de-
fendant could not take three farthings and one-fifth of a far-
thing, he was entitled to take the whole penny for each
month, or otherwise he would take less than his duo, and,
according to that argument, the amount which he had de-
manded to receive, namely, 111 d., fur the eleven months
and a half during which the loan continued was perfectly
correct. But, supposing that argument to be good to any
extent, and that as a matter of necessity the defendant was
entitled to take interest at first in that manner, we are by no
means satisfied of, as the Act says " to pay 20 per cent., and no
more." We do not think that it is good for every successive
month, but that as soon as the period arrived when the inte-
rest due amounted to a current coin, the necessity was at an
end; and that, as he still continued to take interest at the
rate of Id. per month he was taking interest at 25 per cent.
He was therefore offending against the provisions of the Act,
and the sessions were right in convicting him ; and the rule for
setting aside that conviction must be discharged.
THE QUEEN V. LEDGARD.
This was an information against the defendant in the nature
of a quo warranto. The information was filed for the pur-
pose of trying the right of the defendant to the office of Town
Councillor of- the Borough of Poole, he not having had at
the election a majority of votes. The defendant pleaded
that he, being qualified to serve as Town Councillor, was
duly elected to the said office. The prosecutor took issue on
the plea that the defendant was duly qualified. At the
trial of the case before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the Dorset
Summer Assizes in 1836, evidence was tendered of the poll-
ing-paper produced from the custody of the new Clerk of the
borough, but no proof was given of such papers having been
received by him from the old Town-clerk, nor any attempt
made to prove their identity, as the papers by which the voters
actual ly gave their votes at the election. The Learned
Judgeroceived the evidence, but gave the defendant leave to
move for a new trial if the Court should think that he ought to
have rejected it. A rule had since been obtained to set aside
the verdict found for the Crown. Mr. Erie showed cause
against the rule ; and Mr. Sergeant llompus was heard in its
support.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT.

THE CLAIMS OF THE BARON DE BODE.

Mr. HILL in allusion to a motion he made on Tuesday last
for a rule, calling upon the Lords of her Majesty's Treasury
to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue.
commanding them to pay the amount claimed of them by
Baron de Bode, and relatiTe to which his Lordship post-
poned his judgment, said that if there were any points in that
case on which his Lordship required further information he
was anxious to afford it. _ _ _

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE thought that the Baron de Bode
had no legal or specific claim to the money he sought to re-
cover from the Lords of the Treasury. He was not at all
satisfied from the affidavits in support of the application that
the Baron de Bode was a British-born subject, or that his case
came within the intent and meaning of the convention under
which he claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ju 5.
BOTD V. LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action of trespass, in which a verdict had been
found for the plaintiff, and a rule nisi obtained for a nonsuit,
on the ground that the defendants had not received due notice
of action. The question was whether the word " person" in
the Act of Parliament, was intended to include a company of
corporation ; or, in other words, whether the privilege of re-
ceivinz a month's notice of action was intended to apply to the
case of a corporation, although the word " person" only was
used. The rule came on for argument to-day, when
The COURT held that the word " person" was intended to
include a corporation, and therefore that the rule for a nonsuit
must be made absolute.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Jurra 5.
THOMAS, ASSIGNEE, V. CONNELL.
This was an action brought by the assignees of one Chetham
to recover different sums of money alleged to have been paid
by the bankrupt to the Northern and Central Bank of Eng-
land, of which the defendant is a registered officer, under a
fraudulent preference. The cause was tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Coleridge at Liverpool, when the verdict was for the plain-
tiff for 7761. 10s. Sir F. Pollock having obtained a rule nisi
for a new trial last Term, Mr. Cresswell appeared to-day
against the rule.—Rule discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Yesterday a man of very respectable exterior, named Gott-
herd Raake, was brought before the LORD MAYOR, in the cus-
tody of Daniel Forrester, charged with having forged a letter
of credit upon Messrs. Rothschild, and also with having stolen
lOU from Mr. Bell, clerk to Mr. Wilke, the solicitor.—Re-
manded for a fortnight.