Star. — London, England, 1801-11-11 00:00:00

:In vet:. :e E; ;in;: ina ;!RR, 11. r ICA ; • Lifonn • the erdarn. gcw Iri; us, 4'.• cu, • tlr on • '.:an 11;airi. Veen, fnat am Moan, ; and I'm • Livcrpool ; ; 111:. :MBER ;. Po LP, Bet . N Di Litzr a Spial ' rom Capt. ing me of ateer, by C•iiU4",t my Lords t, Sept 1. .it on the his M. ommand, rccived a 114ptilla, vith . 2 va: which ills. TARCL. ry 1. W. morning, .Es being and Con ;er in the 's,(it then tl OM the lanner by im: , r.d of Lc^.is.— ;7C:rate:J., vd, fifty-c ~d w.;, . i HOLLIS. rlie flop the Ilon- Svrra Melds, is or',o". C:t co anew r 'cf., it boat's n Hull to iQxnd of rc of duc 1 to Gib iy perfort by tome Virginia, o Egypt, into Al. rt to Lot. Livcd &,11Lft• mtinGutli F2A4lto 120 mns r hir..Capt. f Jre 1.4i1- he fellow- id, tition, tor 4m, :Uplit2lCS m.. A:. At i'nrtC iAI Ily;lig at of j 6 OW. In,. Captabi Ps, ( splAill Eum, Cll7 of 64 rool.l tisc hu-bout LA* INTELLIGENCE. bAURY-LASE TNF6TRF• CCURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 12. , Motinn came on to-day before the Cit•xcitt• Inito in which Meffrs. Hammerfley and Co. wen. t le Plaintiffs, and Mr. Sheridan, Defendant, rda ' to e management of Driiry.lane Theatre. n that the cafemay be clearly compreliende,: (air Readers, as it was rather intricate, by tWI .aides Lying blended in the argument, it may not he improper to (late a few fads which appeared daring the courfe of the difcuflion, as preliminary mater--When Drury-lane Theatre was rebuilt, t h otc were 300 New Renter's (hares created for 5oo• each, I for each of which (hares the holder wa, entitled to an atnuity of 2s. 6d per night, doing each night of performance, for a term of to ; years, By a deed executel in 5793, Meffrs. Hammerfley, Wallace, and Ford, were appointed Truftees for thefe Renters, and a fum of 401. per :light was to be paid to them, for th.t purpofe of co" - ering the refit dde upon thefe !hares. Jo the year 1796, it became necclTary to borrow more money for the fini(hing of the Theatre, and 37 new rent charges of tl. each per night, were created, Which fold for 20001. each, and t z other sr.nuities of 501. a year. Of thefe Renters Mr. Hammerfley was alfo the Trace, by deed between bi»t nil one part, and Meffrs. Sheridan, Grubb, and Richardfon, on the other part. The forty pounds per night refereed by the deed c f 1793 , to be paid to Hammerfley, as Truftee for the Renters of the nightly 2s. 6d. rents, not bong paid, a bill was filed again(( Mr. Sheridan, in March 1799, the prayer of which was, that an account of the produce of the Theatre from De ceinber 1798 might be taken, and that in the mean time it fhould be referred to the Mailer to appoint a Receiver, who fhould take all the pro cseds of the Theatre, to be applied according to the intent of the truft deed of 1793. This fuit pro duced a negdciation between the partie', which ended at 14a in an agreement between Ford and Fammerfley on the one part, and Sheridan on the other, bearing date the 21ft of February 18ot, by which it was agreed, that Ford and Hammer-city fhould appoint two perfons to receive the whole of the money et:Melted at the Pit door, in trufl, firfl to pay the falaries of fuck receivers; next to retain forty-five pounds each night to pay the arrears due , to Renters, and to fecure a fund for future pay ' stunt ; and after that was done, to pay the furplus to Mr. Sheridan at the end of an- year. If the Re- , c.'ieer appointed by them received any moLftation or hindrance, then it was to be lawful to the Trilf tees to apply to the Court further to appoint a Re ceiver. This agreement was made an order of Curt on Coe 6th of March following, by compact between the parties. A fuhfequent bill was alto filed by Hammerfloy, as Trace, under the deed of 1796, againft She ridan, Grubb, and Richardfon, in which he had obtained a fimilar order to receive the proceeds of the box doors, in tiara, after payment of the Rent ers, and next of a dim of money due to himielf, that he fhould pay the furplus to Sheridan, Grubb, and Richardfon. s'ne Receivers bf the pit door were appointed by Metes. Ford and Hammerfley, by virtue of the agreement of the 25th of February 18c r, and the Order of Court founded thereon on the fubfe cuent 6th of March, who continued in their office until October laft, when they were removed by Mr. Richardfon, who claimed to be jointly bite :eft:3 with Mr. Sheridan, and in confequence of that removal, agieeably to the latter claufe in the agreetnent, thc Plaintiffs now moved the Court to have a Receiver appointed under their authority. On the other hand t Mr. Sheridan oppofed this mo tion, by giving notice of an intention to have a counter motion, that both thole orders fhould be difeharged. It was in that (hope that the matter Low came on to be argued before the Cassia ctos. Mr. MANSFIELD and Mr. Fotista ago e, as Coup fel for the Plaintiffs, contended that Mr. Sheridan could tint oppofe the motion with any probability cf fueeefs, as it was founded upon an agreement to which he was party, and had given his exprefs erment ; and the fubfequent order of Court had! alto his concurrence. There could not tither lc any doubt but that the /plaintiff had full right to male the prefent motion, as the Receiver had been diflurbe.i from doing that which it was ngrced he (hould do, namely, take the ninnies of Cu: Pit door. With refped to Meths. Grubb and kirhardlon, they were parties in another caufe, Ninth was no way conneded with the prefent motion. It was true that on the t ith of June rhos, an order was made in that mite, funilar to the one in the former, placing the proceeds of the Box doors in Mr. Hammerfley's hands, but it did not do away the former Order, though Mr. V.trislan in his affidavit affeded to confider that it slid ; but upon reference to that Order it would be found, that the words were inferted, 4 , if Ford and Hammerfley thould content e.tretu." With refpeil to the affidavit of Richard. fel, complaining of the hardfhip of the order of Ctit March—the two orders had tin connedion, and it was mofl beneficial for the intereft of all ;eat:izs, that a receiver fhould be appointed, who ald regularly pay thc performers, the Renters, • parties interefted. The prefent Treafiner • ;!!•t even be the perfon ; then the Theatre ;!.I go on juft as it did at prefent, except that the : ..y would find its way into the right pockets. Socierros GENERAL, for Mr. Sheridan, Lod, that the only queflion would be, Whether the b tickers, after having received foflicient to cover demands of the Renters, for whom they •••••:e Trultees, Ihould be ftifiered to accumulate 4%! fill plus in their own hand:, at the rifque of to ' deilroying the proc.rty, v:ithout any fern. Place of reafon or pretence. The °Lied of the def . 1793, was to secure that to be tirft done 1...41 i was molt important to be done ; 11 the P a y' of Reuters (hares and falaries. The Bill filed I" carry the intent of that deed into execu- And it teemed 'cry Ikrange that the fable .ol:nt order, without reference to the Bill, thottld ne thofc objeds to any other con'ldetation. ...ndcr the elect!, Sheridan was entitled to the farii:tts, with no right of detainer; bOt by the "rder lie was not to receive it until the end of the t::tfon. It was not due to thole who received the s. 6d. per night, for they had the benefit of the 451. per night, and the futplus of ten or twelve thoufand pounds was applicable to the fervice o f the Theatre. The Learned Counc..:l then read .t letter horn Mr. Troward, Solicitor for the plain tiffs, id which he propoled the. appointment of a ;Zeceivcr to Mr. Sheridan, Bating, that the furplus w as to be paid " To his order." To this Mr. Sheri-, Jan agreed, btit when the draft came, the whole Man was altered, and they propofed to lock up the furplus from him until the end of the fealon.— Mr. Sheridan remonffrated, hut was informed, that unlefs he contented, the Conn would be moved the next day to appoint a General Re ceiver. As this would have been produdtive of run to the Theatre, he was induced to liven the agreement as it flood. With retpal to the order of the II th of June, that was made in another caufe, the Bill of which prayed for a General Re ceiver to fecure the trulls of another deed of 1798, by which a debt of to,oool. was fecured to Mr. Hammerfley, Mr. Sheridan contented to the lat ter order, under an idea that the oppreffive part of the former order would be done away, which übJe& moll certainly he had not obtained. The LORD CH ANCF LLOR faid, he could not fee what objeCt Metrrs. Ford and Hammerlley had in view in int - ailing to demand the monies of the Theatre, alter a fum was obtained fufficient to pay the Renters. If any thing was undertaken by the Troll Deed of t 793, it was the payment of the Perlot :nets, and he did not fee how any body could hold the monies arifing from the Theatre againtt the demands of the Performers. Mr. MAN sritin laid, the Trull Deed only re lated to the poireilion of the Theatre. The Loan CHANCELLOR Paid, the Trull Deed appeared to him to apply to the regulation of the concerns of the Theatre, and he thought no one could take the monies until the Performers were paid. It right be a quellion whether the Mana ger of a Theatre was not to be confider eel as the Agent fur all parties, and perfonally refponfible ? The SOLICITOR GENERAL proceeded.—The whole receipts of the Proprietors of the Theatre during the prefent kafon, for their own private purpoles, had been, he laid, only zcol. which they had not only paid back, but alto 7301. more, ralted by themielves. There could not be a doubt that the horn ietors ought to have the means of uif lying the nightly and weekly demands of the Per tamers, and the immediate wants of the Theatr7. The motion that had been made on the part of Meas. Ford and Hammerfley went to lock up the greaten part of the receipts of the Theatre, to take tt out of the hands of the Prom ietot s, and not only to take away flout them alt the means of controul over the concerns of the Theatre, but to preclude tliem nom the pollibility of at alt carrying on the beard's of the Theatre ; and if the order of the ith June was enforced, the 'Fileatre could not oaa on. That the objofl of Meas. Ford and Ham me-fle) 's application to the Court, was completely inimical to the intereils of the Renters, was evi dent. The Renters were intitled to zs. 6d. for every night of performance, but only for thole nights on which any performance took place ; it was therefore clear, that ifthe monies of the Thea tre were taken away, the Proprietors rendered un able to pay the neceatry expences of the Theatre, and its Exchequer Ihut up, that TIO performance could take place, and the interea of the Renters mull be completely defeated. Meflis. Ford and Hammerfley were in the undifputed nightly receipt of 451. from the Pit, and 831. front the Boxes, making together 1281. which amounted, in the courfc of the feafon, taking it at 200 nights, to the fum of z 5,6001. whin' they were not called upon to pay the Renters until force time after the termi nation of the feafon. Yet not contented with this, they wanted to,ocol. or 1 z,oool. more, without being able to Rate any pnrpofc whatever which could junify fuch a claim, or chew any object to which the money was to be applied. He therefore hoped the Court would allow the order to be dif- charged. hr. Prfror addrefTed the Court on the fame fide. He flitted, that there were 300 Rent charges upon the Theatre, at 2S. 6d. per night each, amounting to 3.1. ros. per night, and that Mr. Sheridan had contented that Nleffrs. Ford and Hammeriley lhould receive 71. tos. in addition to that fum, far info ranee and contingencies, making in the whole 451. per night, which !skins. Ford and Hammerfley had conaantly received. Suppoling the receipts of the Pit to average one hundred pounds per night, it would amount to twenty thouland pounds in the feafon, of zoo nights ; the fum taken by Meiru c. Ford and Hammeriley out of this, at 451. per night, amounted to wool. and they now wanted to take the remaining z r,oool. and fwecp away, as it were, the whole property. TheLORDCHANCELLoa anted who were the Pro prietors of the Theatre on the 6th elf March r Sol Mr. Picor raid, Meas. Sheridan, Richardson, and Grubb. Mr. Kansa:ELl, denied this, and laid, he be lieved Mr. Sheridan to have been at that period the only Proprietor, becauk Mr. Sheridan had, in his Anfwcr to the Bill tiled in that Court, not Rated any other perfun to be Proprietor betides himfelf. Mr. Placer laid, it had not been attempted to be controverted that Mr. Richardson and Mr. Grubb were Proprietors of the Theatre. The fur , plus of the monies, after paying rent and arrears were, it appeared by the conitruelion of the order, to be fubjc& to the order of the Court, but was he to be told, that in confequence of this, Mr. Sheridan could pay the Performers? If the Per formers were not paid, the Theatre mull he (hut : and would any one that fay Mr. Sheridan could touch a curie finning of the shOC3I. %Sikh would be thus loCked up in the hands of the Bankers? The Mot;on made on behalf of Mars. Ford and Ham medley was, he laid, unexampled. The LORD CHANCELLOR walled to know how fome part of the monies received by Mei - rs. Ford and Hammes - Bey, exclulive of the 451. was to be applied ask. P,aor (aiJ, thcle was tcl. fcr the Duke of Bedfbrtt's Rent : 3 1 .. for 6ocl. advanced ; and 471. los. for tl.e iI. itLaters' Shar,:s. ANL It :11i.% he had experien• red with refpea to the Opera Houle, and other places of that defeription, that it was impotlible to make all the perfons intereffed parties. That Court was incompetent to manage a Theatre, it could only make an crdcr to regulate the int - mils of all parties, fo htr as known. It appeared by the correfpondence between Mr. Sheridan and Mr. 'Froward, that the former had given his con tent to an order which fhould make provilion for the payment of the Renters' Shares, and of the furplus to himfelf. Mr. Sheridan had afterwards conftrued the order according to this intent, in the way in which he Lindell; or any other perfen, would have conflincd it, according to the princi ples of jullice and tquity. It was perfealy jolt that there Mould be an accumulating fund to an- Iwo- the demands of the Rent chargers and the le veral fums of 101. 471. los. and 31. before allnded to. But when a fufficient fum was accumulated to anfwcr thefe demands, it became a very im portant conftderation that the whole monies of the Theatre thould become a dead fund, pro dulive to no one except Meilis. Ford and Ham medley, and whether accumulations fhould ceafe when enough was obtained to cover the demands, or continue for the benefit of perfons inter.ffed ? Mr. PIGOT proceeded. If the Order was con• firmed it would, he laid, be the moll ferious injury to the Rent Chargers. It was well known that in the early !part of the feafon, the Theatre was not produifive on account of many families being ab fent from town. If Medis. Ford and Hammer- Bey could not then make up the fums they were entitled to receive, they muff have the monies till the deficiency was covered ; but was it to he raid, they were to lock up all the monies of the Theatre in their fhop till the end of the feafois ? The Per formers and perfcns employed in the Theatre could not wait till that time ; and if the Perform erswerc not paid the Theatre muff be (hut : it was impoffible to carry on trade without materials.— The intereft of all parties concerned in the Theatre muff be by fit. ii a rreafurc defeated or injured, and it was furely impnffible furls a Motion could be gt anted.—Mr. Sr 4 V LEY followed on the fame fide. .„. Mr. AGAR offered himfelf on behalf of Mr. Grubb. The LORD CHANCELLOR fait!, he did not lee how Mr. Grubb was individually affeatd. Mr. AGAR. ftid, by the truft-deed of _lone [793, he appeared as the Proprietor of one-feventh of the property [tithe Theatre, and it was Rued by that deed, that Mr. Grubb was appointed Trea fitter of the Theatre. He was proceeding to read lonic parts of the sized when— LORD CtIANCF.LLOR laid, he had read through-the truft-deed of June 1793, and he was perfeetly clear, that under that deed the Perform. els mull b.: paid, and that the Punkets ci,ciel not hold the monies of the Theatre againft the de mands of the Performers. It was dillinaly in that deed, that the profits were to be applied to fuch and fuck purpofes ; and what could he deemed the profits but that furplos, after pnyinr; the Pet fbrmerF., and the other outgoings of the Theatre? He apprehended thisfarphis only could he deemed the proliti, and it wus but common juftice to pay the wages of the Actors. it might become a epieflion whether the Rent Charges did not clothe thole Si ho held them w it}, the charaaer of Tritilees, but whoever afted under the truft•decd mutt ati accua ditirt• to its provition,.. Mr. SHER I n...s rofe and addreffed the Court.— alway, underflood, he faid, that under tilt Trull Deed of June 1793, the Performers were to be paid in the firft balance ; and he would not lign or conliaa to the Order, until words were exprefsly inferted that it fhould be without prejudice to that Deed. He faid, that he had no hand in the dif-1 pofition of the money ot iginally raifed for building the Theatre. The Truftees had agreed for the building of the Theatre for mood. and Mr. Hol land (load pledged to finith it,with the taverns and forrounding buildings, complete, for that fum That fum, however, was (pent, and the Theatre was not completed in any of its parts, but required the ihm of to,oool. more to fit it for Reprdenta tion. He complained much of the expences in , cut rrd by law even in that early flage of the bull rid ; and, s as an balance, he raid, the deeds of the Renters,whiar was a simple engraving upon parch ment, wassliarvd in the bill of law expences.at the (urn of ',tool. The Deed which had called himfclf, IMr. Richardtiur, and Mr. Grubb, tole proprietors of the Tlic:tret•had declared an ntter falfehood, Melfrs. Gruits and Riehardfon only deriving cer tain rights from himiell. He was told, however, they should be fo !hied ; but the Solicitor for the Bankers, after he (Mr. Sheridan) had figned the Deed, drew up a Memorandum, which was exe cuted, exprefsly declaring, that nothing in the i Deed Ibould be contirued to invalidate the excht.l live property of hinifell (Mr. Sheridan) in that Theatre. Since that, Mr. Richardfon had become an aattal Proprietor, having purchased one quar ter of the Theatre. The Theatre could not (land, he faid, again 9 the expences canted by Gentlemen coming into Court info many different charaaers. In his letter to Mr. Trou ard, he had, he faid, con tented to Meffrs. Ford and Hammerfley taking the whole of the Pit Money until the arrears due to them were paid, and then that they Illon:d take 43 1 . per night for the payment of the Rent-r: Shares. He was not bound to pay them mare than 431. ; 1 !hut rather than there fhould be the rerno: A pro fpea of the R•futers fuffering by conlit;g:nci.:s, he had agreed to make it 45F. But it not for a moment be conceived, that lie o :.n. fent to a propofill which went to lock t•a the receipts of the Pit, and prevent th m trom applied to the purpofec of the Theatre until the end of the &aeon. He was not obliged to open the Theatre. It was clearly t!:e intcreft rf the Renters that the Performances th mid go on—but how cuu!d they on s% ;thou rnmer t • •hlr. Troward propofed the Order to !am, ard reeorn mended him to corf:nt to it. He had conient.:,l to it. The Order lo far 11,.•d againll him, and if perfifted in moil 111:13111.4 up of the Theatre. But how had he contented to it ? He had c onfented to an Order founded upon thofe et:- 00%114am ssh eh he had before ilatsci. He did ' r., !t underhand C,.:l'lly the grnmmati<•.i! conllt h.:- Con of the Older ; all he nnderftood was, ;hat MArs. Ford and Haruncrfley were entit!. d :o no more than 431. out of the Pit Money. He was afterwards told that the Order was wortkJ io a way %title?' did not exactly full his meaning ; (hit, , h0....-ever, he was given to underfiarid, that the wording of it was of little confernet:cc, ac its leope and tendency were perfeCtly 'ided - mod. It was found, at length, that the Order was to be lb iCtly afted upon according to its letter, and that directions were given by the Bankers for enforc ing it. Mr. Richardfon in his ahfcnce had given contrary direaions ; and he could not fly that Mr. Richardfon was to blame, becaufe the Thea tre could otherwife not have gone on. Meirrs. Ford and Hammerfley had now, however, 1.-rved a fecond notice, and appeared determined to feite the whole of the Pit Money under the authority of the letter of the Order, but certainly contrary to its fpirit. He apologifed for troubling the Court, but he wifhed for relief from the effeet of an Order into which he had been entrapped, and that the 'fruit Deed of 1793 might be executed in all its provifions without any reftrietion. Mr. AGAR was then heard in behalf of Mr. Grubb. The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid, it was of little confequence whether Metlrs. Itichardfon and Grubb held derivative or aCtual rights in the pro perty of the Theatre, provided they were fo far intereffed as to be parties to this Order. Mr. MANSTIELD offered himfelf in reply. The Loan CHANCELLOR laid, he was lorry he could not hear Mr. Mansfield in reply, but he was compelled to be elks% here at twoo'clock. He hoped the concerns of the Theatre would not Puffer by a few hours delay. The Order having been made by content, certainly ought to have been entirely approved and rendered perfeCtly confilient with the intaells of all parties. It had (truck him very (lrongly that the Performers had not only a moral but a covenanted right to be paid, nor could there be any profits until the Performers were paid. He law many Gentlemen before him, who he was convinced would fettle this bufinela as well as it could poffibly be done by the Court, becaufe they would 261 upon the principles of jidlice, which was all that would be requifite. He was afraid, it was impoffible the intcrefts of the Theatre could be fettled in that Court before they were ruined. He had found from long experience, that that . Court could not, in cafes like the prefent, do that ample j it Rice to all parties which was neceliary and requifite. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL laid, Mr. Sheridan was fo convinced of the truth of his Lordfhip': übfer vation, that he was ready to leave the whole to Lo reviled by any Gentleman of the Profeffion whom his Lordthip fliould name.—The Caine flood ose:. COURT OF CON:MON PLEAS, NOV. 9. Serjeant Bev'. (hewed cattle amainff a R'.:lc 01) 1 tamed by Serjc-:nt BAILEY, to fe e ; afide an :=lCh , meat aeainll etc ;,heritf of Stafford, in a cattle— licmfon againe: Knox. Thii was, as appeared in argument, rather a cal.: in or. lice, arifing in the conaruilion of a It:lc oftc:ritut of Hilary Tertn, 1782, relating to a Cafint bciag ham out in one county, and a Il i : lawn (:a . : hcing cettiEA to another, whereby tt occa lion, great uncertainties as to n hat aunty t:ie bail fhonid be tendered in. In thepreil:nt intlance a Capin: was fued out in Middlefex,ar.d a T e fiatum Co pies was tent into the county of Stanrd. Notice of hail was given in that county, fur want of its being done in Islicidlcfcx, from whence the original pro. cefc iffued, the Sheriff of Stafford was ruled to bring in the body, and failing to do that, the at tachment illbed. The Court thought it ton much to get rid of the debt of 551. 4s. by this kerning irregularity, therefore made an order, that the parties fltould he at liberty to go on to trial, the attachment againfi the Shea iff remaining as a fecu rity to abide the event. ciphi. NO*EMBIR 10. Serjsant Comma moved the Court, that, in the caufe Langlois again ft Parrott, audgment of n u ll. fait might be entered for the De fe ndant. Mr. Parrott is an Attorney of this Curt, and was employed to foe a Mr. Elk for 91. for goods fold and delivered. By an alledged negleet in the Attorney figning an interlocutory judgment, Lang. lois loft his remedy, and thelef.ue cued the precut Ddendant in his cuaratler as Attorney, for the fum lift by I.:eh his negleEl. It came iat to he tried at the fittings in lad Ti laity Term ; feveral olije,' - ;lons were taken as to the declarat on ; and veßiia paired conditionally for the Plainlifr, filb jeiti to the opinion of the Court, :.< to the tele• valley of an objeaion taken itgairat the th ird cuunt. The Court granted a Rule tor a farther haring, when Serieant Bur may bcinitrueled. Serjeant Cocx Lt. obtained a Rule to lir.tw cattle why a new trial thould not be granted in the cattle of Johnfton again ft But:km:yr, tried 1.01 turn, lin. der the 2 sat Geo. U. cap. 36. Inc keeri.tg h4L of entertainment with inutic, %%idiom a PREEMAI4 V. GREEN. This was an Asgiun againtk the Defe.taint for the proceeds of tool. Stock fold out for the plain tiff, and !till due and unpaid. After the tale of Stock was proved, the defendant's email pro duced a bill, whereby it appealed that the De fendant had, from day to day, dining the mm . ,hs of March und April, paid to the plaintiff, Mrs. Freeman, fums from five (billings to live p ,, unds, amounting in the whole to ycl. which Bin having been read over to the plaintiff, item by item, was allowed by her to be right,.although the rcfafecl to put her name to it. Mrs. Rokycr, and her fervant Elizabeth Collins, proved the acknowledgment.—Plaintiff Noliaited. WALDO' TAVIBELL AND Dt.siGii 1. The Plaintiff is Butler to a Baronet ; and with a fiiend. Mr. Giffin, went to the lioufe of rite I);fen•lint, who is a publican, to drink Come por ter. On n qatltion being alked 1s)- Mr. Giffin of the landlord. li: Hew into a violent palTion, and •c died for his wife to bring him 501. to fight for : this the plaintiff declined, when Tautbell went nut bri.ught in the detemiant Denight, conilable, towhom gave the plaintiff IVal,:on in ciarze. 4