The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-10 00:00:00

EXCHEQI ER COURT-THIS DAY,

CORPUS• CHRISTI COLLEGE V. ELLIS.
This was an action of q,ectment, in which the Mas-
ters, Fellows, and scholars of Corpus-Christi College,
Cambridge, were the plaintiffs, and a gentleman, of
the name of Ellis, was the defendant.
The question in dispute was as to the right of pro-
p9rty in a piece of land, in the immediate vicinity of
the town of Cambridge. This piece of land adjoined
the grounds both of the plaintiffs and the defendant;
and the dispute respecting it had arisen on the expi-
ration of an ancient tenancy. The case was tried be-
fore Mr. Baron Alderson, at the last assizes for Cam-
bridge, when a verdict was returned for the defendant.
Mr. BYLES now moved for a rule to show cause
why this verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had on the ground that the verdict was centraryto
the weight of evidence, and the Learned Judge had
excluded evidence which ought to have been admitted.
It appeared from the 'statement of the Learned Gen •
tleman that the plaintiffs bad put in two deeds, dated
in the year 1587, conveying to them certain lards, at
that time the property of Sir Francis ilinde, in
which it was all but manifest that the land now in
dispute was included. It further appeared that the
Learned Judge had refused to allow in evidence a
copy of a college deed, of which the original could
not be found. it was on these grounds that the pre-
sent application was made.
Lord ABINGER said that the Court felt disposed to
grant the rule; they should, however, first consult
with Baron Alderson on the matter.
WILSON V. ACKERMANN.
The plaintiff in this case is a paper manufacturer,
and the defendant is the well known prints-seller.
It was an action brought for the recovery of the
payment of a quantity of paper furnished by the
plaintiff. It appeared that in 1838, the defendant,
Ackermann, and two other parties, named Whitehead
and Carlisle, agreed to bring out a monthly periodical,
to be called the " Sporting Review," of which the first
number appeared in January, 1839. By the terms of
the agreement between the parties, it was arranged
that Whitehead should furnish the paper, and print
the publication, making a fair charge for his trouble
and expenses ; that Ackermann should be publisher,
receiving a commission; that Carlisle was to. be the
editor, at a certain monthly salary ; and that all the
profits were to be equally divided between the three
parties. The present plaintiff had furnished for the
publication a quantity of paper to W hitehead, who,
being unable to pay for it, plaintiff sought to recover
the amount from the defendant, on the ground that he
was answerable for the debt contracted by his part •
ner. The case was tried before Lord Abinger at the
Guildhall, when averdiet was found for the defendant.
Mr. WATSON now moved, by leave of the Learned
Judge, for a rule to show cause why a verdict should
not be entered for the plaintiff, on the ground that
the defendant was liable to the payment of a debt
incurred for a publication in which he was a partner.
The Couta held that the defendant was not so
liable, as the business of printing and providing
paper were left, by the terms of the agreement be-
tween the parties, exclusively in the hands of White-
Lead.—The rule was therefore refused. .