The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-07 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

E. T. Waters, merchant, Old South Sea-house, June 23,
lt eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—W. Reid and W.
Stephens, merchants, Great George-street, Tower-hill,
June 23, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Parker,
,:ork-cutter, lioundsditch, June 30, at half-past one, at the
Court of Bankruptcy— G. Lamport, salesman, Newgate-
market, June 30, at half-past twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy—J. Cooper and J. Reader, woolstaplers,
Stroud, June 27, at half-past twelve, at the Court of
Rankruptcy —G. Betts, upholsterer, Charles-street,
Grosvenor-square, June 27, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy—J. Jameson, victualler, Duke-street, Man-
chester-square, June 27, at two, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy Jesse Parker, victualler, Webber-row, St.
George's, Southwark, June '27, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy—J. Jacob and W. Jacob, merchants, Newgate-
street, June 27, at. twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—
G. Haynes, victualler, Trinity-street, Southwark, June 30,
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—W. Barnard,
underwriter, Lloyd's Coffee-house, City, June 30, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
CERTIFICATES.—JUNE 27.
T. Butt, bootmaker, Hedge-row, Islington—W. Nay-
lor, glass-manufacturer, Mortimer-street, Cavendish-
square—W. Barber, grocer, Gray's Inn-lane and Hack-
ney—J. Johnson, glass and lead-merchant, Norwich—P.
Fryer, cotton spinners and manufacturers, Barton-upon-
Irwell, Eccles, Lancashire—W. Boys, wine-merchant,
Eastbourne, Sussex—S. Shepherd, wine-merchant, Up-
per Bryanston-street, Portman-square—J. Edgecumbe,
cooper, Walcot, Somersetshire—H. T. Rogers, printer,
Halifax, Yorkshire—W. Thompson, provision-dealer, Bir-
mingham.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Brooks and Elizabeth Rose, surgeon-dentists, Liver-
pool—S. H. Wichello and G. Hanson, parchment-manu-
facturers, Thame, Oxfordshire—S. Tanner and E. Red-
dick, dressmakers, Cheapside—W. Wallis and S. Wright,
ironmongers, Oxford-street—W. P. Williams and J. P.
Williams, linendrapers-, Stonehouse, Devonshire—T. Read
and J. Read, wine-merchants, Bath and Cheltenham—
W. Hewett and C. J. Edmonds, surgeons and apotheca-
ries, East Ilsley, Berkshire—Sarah Slatter and Lucy Slat-
ter, mercers, Winchcomb, Gloucestershire—R. Moore
and H. Moore, breeches-makers, Epsom and Leatherhead,
Surrey—J. Creffield and R. Coventry, coachmakers and
farriers, Slough, Buckinghamshire—C. Shargool and H.
Shargool, music-sellers, Birmingham—W. Wilberforce
and H. Cleeve, cow-keepers, Edgware-road.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.

J. Philp and Son, distillers, Dolls, Clackmannan, to
meet June 13 and 27, at twelve, within the Tontine Inn,
Alloa.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 6.

CHARLESWORTII V. REDGARD.
This was an action to recover a penalty of 1001. from
the defendant for having acted as a commissioner for
paving and lighting in a matter wherein he was interested.
The action was tried before Chief Justice Tindal at the
Lincoln Assizes, when a verdict was found for the de-
fendant.

Mr• BALGUY
, on a day in last term, obtained a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had. The notes of the learned judge were read over, from
which it appeared that in July last an order was madeC by
the then commissioners respecting a footpath which passed
the defendant's premises ; he was elected a commissioner
in August, and in October he attended a meeting, at
which he moved that the order of July should be
discharged; he was then told by the plaintiff who was
also a commissioner, that he would enforce the statute if
he acted in contravention of it. He, however, pressed his
motion, and a ballot was had upon it, when, there having
been thirty-two commissioners present, twenty were found
to have voted for the motion, eleven against
eirte,sapnedakoinnge
ball was found to have fallen between the two boxes. The
thate was, whether
considered the
tnotr
the
ques-
tionjnr Y foundnosv
to be
Leontended that
side,
ov
re
was anr a
seetirnggeaNnv within hAi nD tAhikei
smaena
and Mr.
o f tAh
oa cs
hiteecnoueldqunantitybehasohlceohnasiddehree
against his own interest.
Mr. BALGUY, for the plaintiff, submitted that the de-
fendant had actually voted for it, and it was proved that
the whole of the thirty-two balls were thrown into the
box, and although the one was a lost vote, still it was clear
that the intention of the party was to have voted. Besides,
he had opened the case by stating he would prove that it
was another commissioner, and not the defendant, who put
his ball into the wrong box ; he put that commissioner into
the box, but the learned judge ruled that he could not be
examined.

HILL and Mr. FOLLETT were heard on the same
side.
The CouRT would consult with the Lord Chief Justice
before givaig judbment.