The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-02 00:00:00

PARKER V. 110PKINS.-TITHES!

Mr. Sergeant -------- stated that this was an
action :brought under the Tithe Commutation Act
(England and Wales) to set aside an award made
by the Commissioners of Tithe Commutation. The
Act provided that when either party was dissa-
tisfied with an award of • the Commissioners for
an amount exceeding 301., the parties so
dissatisfied might bring the matter before any of her
Majesty's Courts of Law at Westminster, provided
the writ of summons be issued within one month from
the date of the award complained of. In the present
case two days had been allowed to elapse, and the
Learned Sergeant applied for a rule nisi to enlarge the
time.—Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Justice PATTESON took his seat on the Bench
at about half-past one o'clock.

FORD V. THE HON. GEORGE FOLEY.

Mr. UDELL in this case moved for the enlargement
of a rule granted last term, to postpone a trial in con-
sequence of the absence of some necessary witnesses.
The action was for 1,0001., and the money was
lodged in Court by the defendant. The application
was founded upon affidavits, which stated that sub-
pcenas were endeavoured to be served on the wit-
nesses, but they were kept out of the way ; and it
sought to have the rule enlarged for the purpose of
serving the subpcenas.
Mr. Justice PATTSON—Take a rule to show cause.

EXCHEQUER COURT—THIS DAY.
Lord Abinger, the Chief Baron, and the other
Judges of the Court, took their seats on the bench
shortly after one o'clock.

JONES V. JONES.
In this case Sir John Bailey moved for a rule to
show cause why the peremptory undertaking should
not be enlarged and proceedings staid. It appeared that
in Easter term the defendant had been discharged
on a peremptory undertaking to try the case at the
last assizes for Cardigan. The plaintiff had given
notice to try, but in consequence of the illness of a
witnesslof the name of Jones, he countermanded the
notice. He further stated, that since that time the
witness Jones had died, and that he was ready to pro-
ceed to trial at the next assizes, if their Lordships
should grant the present application.
The COURT—Take a rule to show cause.
DANKER AND OTHERS V. BURDIKAN.
Mr. PLATT moved for a rule in this.case to show
cause why the verdict of the Jury in this case should
not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial
had, or why, at all events, the sum should not be re-
duced to the amount brought into Court.
The plaintiffs were the assignees of the Messrs.
Potter, the extensive cotton-manufacturers of Man-
chester, and the defendant represented the Man-
chester Bank. The case had been tried at
Liverpool at the last Assizes, before Mr. Justice
Maule, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff, in
the sum of 15,0001. The action had been brought
in pursuance of an interpleader rule, which was be •
fore the Court in Michaelmas term last. A fiat
of bankruptcy had been issued against the
Messrs. Potter ; but it was necessary to show that
an act of bankruptcy had been commttted by each
of the three Potters previous to the issuing of the fiat.
The Learned Counsel ' now contended that no evi-
dence had been produced to that effect. With
regard to James Potter, there could be no doubt but
that he had committed various acts of bankruptcy. It
appeared that with regard to Richard Potter there had
been an execution against him in August, 1841, and
that on the day following he had left Manchester
for Ipswich, where he went to visit a son
of his, a clergyman. It had been contended by the
assignees, that he had thus committed an act of
bankruptcy ; but the Jury upon the trial found
that this was not an act of bankruptcy, and
negatived the plea. It further appeared, how-
ever, that Richard Potter had, on the Bth of Sept.,
1841, executed a deed,tand it was upon the validity of
that execution that the present question rested. It
was a deed of assignment, the language of which
was couched to convey a joint property of part-
nership, but it, had never been executed by
James Potter previous to the fiat. The Learned
Counsel now contended that the deed -could not be
executed by one only of the parties; and it was on
this ground that the present application was made.
The COURT, after some deliberation granted a rule
to show cause.

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

The Lord Mayor and the Judges sat this morning
at eleven o'clock in this Court, for the purpose of fix-
ing the days for holding the Sessions for the ensuing
Mayoralty. The Judges present were Mr. Baron
Parke, Mr. Baron Alderson, 'Mr. Justice Pattison,
Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Jus-
tice Coleride, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice
Maule, Mr. Justice Erskine, Mr. JuStice Cresswell,
and Mr. Baron Rolfe. Their Lordships appointed
the following days for folding the Sessions for the
ensuing Mayoralty : Monday, 28th November, 1842;
Monday, 12th December, 1842 ; Monday, 2d January,
1843; Monday, 30th anuary; Monday, 27th Feb-
ruary; Monday, 3d April ; Monday, Bth May; Mon-
day, 12th June; Monday, 3d July; Monday, 21st
August; Monday, 18th September; Monday, 23d
October.—The Court then adjourned.

NEW. COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK.)
CONSPIRACY.—Frederich Shachelfield, Charles Syd-
ney Smith, and Goswell, were indicted with con-
spiring together, and with other persons, to defraud
several tradesmen in the City of London. The case
is similar to the one that was tried at the end of the
last Session in the Old Court, and appears likely to
occupy the Court to a late hour, as there are no less
than five counsel engaged, and fourteen counts in the
indictment.