Star.
London, England, 1809-11-20 00:00:00

MAYOP. OP roor,.

Mr. Serjeant LENS moved for a rule to shew cause
why a illasuiamus,b? the way of a writ of Quo War-
rank, should not issue, directed to Mr. Stroag, ruquir-
ing him to shew by what nathority he the
office of Mayor of Pool. lie moved this, on the oath
of Mr. Carter and others, burgesses of Pool.
It appeared, that the Mayer and Aldermen had
given to themselves a right of appou,ting three candi.
dates for the office of Mayor, one out of which three
to be elected by the burghers, although there was no
such provision is the ehartz.,- ; neither was there any
mention made of the title of Alderman, alilicugh those
that had served the office of Mayor, assumed it. On
the ilith of September Lst, the election came on ;
Mayor and Aldermen al jointed Mr. Strong and two
other persons as candidates, and Mr. Strong wap
elected out of the three so appointed,and sworn in,
although the burghers had set up a Mr. John Go.rlartle
without his being appointed by the Mayor, and the
self-made Aldermen, and lie had a large majority of
votes oyez Mr. Strong.—Rule Lranted.

COURT OF EXCREQUIM.
SINIPSON " (Ca TAM" CI:EYRURNr.
The material point of this case, though of consi-
derable importance, witlin a very.short compass.
A Mr. Robert Mattrio;:, an Attorney, beiuo in rattles.
embarrassed circumstances, applied to the Defendant
for a loan of about £3OOO. The Defendant said, that
he had £l3OO in stock, which he would sell out, and
41500 by him, which he had intended to vest in the
funds. If Mr. Maurice would give him the dividends
of the funds, whatever these might be, and replace
for him so much stock at a particular future time, as
the whole .€3OOO would buy at the time of the loan,
he might have the use of that sum. Maurice agreed
to these conditions. The stock was sold, and the
remainder of the sum was paid by a bill at two months
—the discount being however advanced by the De-
fendant to the said Maurice. The Plaintiff, a cre-
ditor of Maurice, endeavoured to destroy this claim
of the Defendant, upon the ground of usurious inter.
'est. The only witness called was Mr. Thomas Man-
'rice, a relative of Robert Maurice, who negociatcd
the loan and stated the tranriction as above.
The SOLICITOR-GE:IEIIAL and i,fr. DA rscrx admit-
ted, that the part of the transaction which cot e.red
in selling the stock, was perfectly fair, but contended
that the other part was clearly usurious, and a mere
trick to enable the Ddendant to take more intereA
than the law allowed.

Mr. Serjeant Brit' and Mr, Houtovn for the De-
fendant, on the other hand, maintained that there
was no reason whatever for considering this as a trick;
but on the contrary, every reason to believe that it
was a fair and bo,nr fk trinsact'on. That a man who
ithi 1d It of the ftirds •

either sold on_ .tae Itte,„ to give a /an, or who
lent what money he intended to have vested in the
funds, was entitled to charge the dividends of the
funds, and to have the stock, whether greater or I‘..sß,
replaced at a future day, had been clearly established
in a cane which came before the king's Bench about
two years ago, —v. Rumbold. In that case the
Plaintiff had brought his action for £4OO, doe to him
from the Defendant, stating that he wished to have
the money to place it in the funds. The Defendant
engaged, if he would stay his action, to give the
fund dividends, and allow at a future period as much
stock as the money would purchase at the time of the
forbearance, and the Plain•ifi. agreed. Upon an action
for usury afterwards brought, the Jury found that this
was no usury, and the Court of King's Bench refused
a new trial. Mr. Serjeant B Eir contended, that k
was impossible to suppose this to be usury, corside;4
ing it as a bona fide transaction, because, though the
Defendant Ind by the rise of the funds got more than.
5 per cent. he might by their fall have got less. The
surplus was therefore no more than a compensation
for the risk.

The LORD CHIEF BARON seemed, in point of lard,
to attach great weight to the case of Rumbold, whitb
he considered as very like the ptcsent case. He therib
fore left it to the Jury merely to CA y whetlx:- this was
a fair and Lona fide transactiou, or a cover for usury t
The Jury thbught it a fair ty.►nsaction, and accer.
(fifthy i' and for 5!?, Deft:m.lm

-11 l