The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-08 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed a drsire to
know when the Court would hear motions for writs
of mandamus and criminal informations.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated that they
were disposed to hear motions at three o'clock on
Monday. He alluded to such as were select.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT suggested that it would
be a matter of accommodavon to suitors if cer-
tain motions were made in this Court instead of
the Nisi Prius Court. If the Learned Judge in
this Court could take long motions from three to
four o'clock, which was once the practice, it would
greatly assist the business.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the
new Act requ,red the Judges to sit from ten
o'clock to four to get rid of causes on the special
paper.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that there WBB
inconvenience in not taking motions for criminal
informations and writs of mandamus in that Court.
Mr. Justice PARKE—Mandamuses may be taken
in the other Court.

The SOLICITOR• GENERAL—When are we to make
them ? _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—There is a measure
in contemplation which may lead to the allowance
of longer time for motions in the other Court.
Nlotions for mandamus may be made in the other
COW-.

The Judges then rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.

CORPE V. OVERTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover from the defendant a sum of 10(4 The
plaintiff, a young man entitled to some property on
his coming of age, in October, 1831, entered into
an agreement with the defendant, a tailor, to enter
into partnership with him on the Ist of the subse-
quent January, he coming of age in the previous
December. On the plaintiff's attaining his ma-
jority he changed his mind, and refused to fulfil his
engagement of entering into
partnership with the
defendant, at the same time demanding his money,
which the defendant refused to return. Plaintiff
brought an action for the recovery of it, and ob-
tained a verdict. On a former day a rule 21ri‘i was

granted to set aside the verdict, and this day Mr.
Sergeant GOULBURN was heard in support of the
rule; but the COURT were of opinion that the
verdict ought to stand, and the rule be discharged,
upon the ground that a minor, or a person under
the age of twenty-one years, not having the power
to enter into trade or articles of partnership, was
entitled to recover back his money, he having re-
ceived no consideration for it.
TIBBINS V. THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA.
This was one of four actions brought by separate
plaintiffs to decide certain disputed rights of com-
monage. Upon the proposition of the noble de-
fendant the question as to rights of three of the
parties was submitted to arbitration; the fourth
party, an individual named Hardiman, decli:iing to
have his rights decided by such a tribunal or in any-
wise to interfere in it. After an inquiry which lasted
several days an award was drawn up, in which the
arbitrators, after deciding upon the general question
at issue, proceeded to state their opinions as to the
separate rights of the individual parties engaged in
the inquiry. Upon the separate rights of Hardi-
man, who declined being bound by the arbitration,
they pronounced no opinion.
Mr. BARSTOWE, on behalf of the defendant, now
moved to have the award set aside, on the ground
that the omission of the arbitrators in their award as
co the claims of Hardiman rendered the whole void.
—Rule Nisi granted.