The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-11 00:00:00

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

The annual general meeting of the proprietors of
Drury-lane Theatre was held on Saturday, in the saloon
f the theatre. Shortly after two o'clock the chair was taken
by the Earl of °lenge', and the annual report was then read
by Mr. Burgess, as follows :
" The general committee, on the occasion of meeting the
proprietors at this annual assembly are gratified in bein,t
able to state that, after having devoted much time to the 1
negotiation with the late lessees, fur the purpose of putting
an end to the double letting, under which the theatre had
m ssu
andnni
itd;et
aciwzohocoillkbean
lettingbgo forward
th enabled
and,from
been demised since the year 1819, they have suceeded in
haviege
s
further thus succeeded
thein put,
obtaining a surrender of the term remaining unexpired
endeavour to restore matters more nearly to their former
odbuloidthromogrroe
ocronatidlernmece to
ro tfdite
r. future.
E. T.
In coneequence of wphraetselntast
lessee,lseen aboveo estaanteado,mthreroctomof-
th
4,000/., being the same amount as was d under the I
double letting.
" With respect to the present decorative state of the
theatte, the committee beg to state, for the information of
the proprietors, that in the recent lease, under which
Messrs. Jullien and Gye held the theatre, was contained a
covenant to expend in the past gement a sum of 500:. in sub-
stantial and decorative repairs, and which they were ready
to perform; yet of such primary importance did the cons-
mlttee consider the surrender of the remainder of the term,
that they deemed it prudent to forego a portion of the
amount stipulated to be by Messrs. Jullien and Gye ex.
vended, the committee receiving the mosey, instead of its
being laid out by the late lease's, by means of which nearly
the whole of the works which appeared to be necessary has,
under the superintendence of the architect, been gradually
effected, during the summer recess, by Mr. Palmer, who
has been many years employed at Drury-lane 'Theatre, end
who has charge, on the part of the proprietors, of the ward-
robe and properties department, ; anti the committee may
now congratulate the proprietors upon the present state of
the interior of the theatre, which, in p int of dreorative
embellishment and accommodation, is not surpassed in any
other theatre in this metropolis.
"As regards the financial position of the property, the
payment ulready made to the renters is only an instalment
hi respect of the present season, and, although small in
amount, it is hoped that it may be augmented from time to
time, as funds come to the hands of the committee, from
the resources of their lessee and otherwise, to enable them
to make a further payment to the renters.
"The committee have to state that, notwithstanding the
difficulties with which Mr. Smith bad to contend, iu point
of time for preparation previous to his opening the theater,
as well as disappointment in his managerial arrargements
for Hamer (which compelled an eariier closing than was
otherwise iuteuded), he has proceeded gradually towards
the liquidation of the amount of his rent for the theatre
to the present period.
K ith reference to the prospects for the future, the com-
mittee are informed that Mr. Smith contemplates (with the
concurrence of the committee) introducing shortly at Drury-
lane Theatre an English operatic company of celebrity, and
under distinguished patronage, during the mouths of Octo-
ber, November, and a part of December.
e sum of 1,3491. 4s. 8d , being ono year'. rent, has
been paid to the ground landlord, the Duke of Bedford, to
whom the committee feel it incumbent cn them to express
their acknowledgments for the indulgence and forbearance
which his grace has extended towards the property in times
of emergency, arising from the non-receipt of the rent from
various persons who have been unsuccessful in their theatri-
cal enterprises. The heavy amount of rates and taxes under
which this establishment suffers has also been paid, as well
as the other demands for salaries, and nearly the whole of
the expenses for the year which has passed since the com-
mittee last had the pleasure of meeting the proprietors in
general assembly.
.* Ihu cash receipts of the season, by lessee's rent and
ether incidental sources, have amounted to the sum of
3,7201. 13s. 6d., whilst, on the other hand, the payments
amount to 3,6741. 17.. 7d., the final accounts of which, as
audited, are now laid before the proprietors.
" In concluding this report, the committee trust the stops
they have taken during the past year, and the arrange-
ment by which they have effected the termination of the
late mode under which the theatre was let, will meet with
the approbation of the proprietors' and be the means of
raising the position of Drury-lane Theatre."
The CHAIRMAN said it was now for some gentleman to
move the adoption of the report, in order that a discussion
might take place in a formal manner.
A Paoratkrou wished to know for what term the the-
atre had been leased to Mr. Smith ?
The CUAIRMLN said it was optional with Mr. Smith to
go on, or with the committee to put an end to the agree-
ment, which was for seven years. The lease was determin-
able upon six months' notice on either side.
Another PROPRIETOR.—What amount of rent has he
paid in the six months ?
Mr. BURGEoo.—Eiehteen hundred and odd pounds.
Kr. PTIFINCH said he should like to know how long it
line since Mr. Smith had failed in paying up his rent ?
Mr. BURCI2I3B could not give the dates, but they would
bs found In the account. The account having been re-
barred to, lie observed—On the 11th of February he failed
in his payment, sad about a month since Le resumed
yyin
r. PTEPINCH would ask whether it was fair to have
allowed him to go on in that way ?
The CHLIRMAN said the hon. proprietor had mistaken
the case very much, and lie could assure him that neither
the committee nor Mr. Smith were very much to blame.
The theatre had been let formerly. under very peculiar cir-
cumstances, and by a species of joint tenancy. That was
thought advisable some years age, as an experiment, but it
bad most certainly faded, and it bad been the cause of the
want of success on the past of Bunn, and also iu a great
measure the cause of that of Mr. Smith. Before the tenancy
of Messrs. Jullien and Gye was put an end to, they had a
lease for half the year, from Juno to December, and their
promenade concerts lasted till that period. The consequence
I was that the lessee could not come in awl prepare for hie win-
ter campaign, which was always the most profitable part of
the season, and he seldom had more than 10 or 12 days to
prepare and bring out his pantomine. Ile had no oppor-
tunity of rehearsing it, in consequence of the continuance of
the promenade concerts, and undoubtedly the pant-mime
was a great source of profit to the lessee for some six or eight
weeks after Christmas. It should be borne in mind that
their theatre was very large, and the expenses attending it
enormous, and Mr. Smith was not, at starting, prepared for
all those difficulties.
A PKOPRIETOR was afraid it was not generally under-
deed that the rent of that theatre must always be taken
with the reservation of an " if." (Hear, hear.) Nor
was it known that, front the time it was built till the
present day every lessee who had taken it had been
ruined. Mr. Macready had, fortunately for himself, a
long purse ; and, as for Captain Polhill, although he lost
60,0001. or 60,0001., his enormous wealth was the ohly thing
that saved him.
Sir HENRY Warts said there was a good deal of miscon-
ception abroad about the letting of the theatre. When
they advertised the theatre to be let nobody came forward ;1
but the moment some party came and made an offer, where
there was no competition, the committee, finding the party
respectable and ready to give proper security for the pay-
ment
of the rent, closed with him on trial or on lease. The
moment that was done all the other theatrical people ex- I
claimed " How did the committee come to let it to that
fellow, when I was about to take it ?" or some other person
was making arrangements to take it. (Hear, hear.) The
world was under the impression that the committee had
made a bad bargain, although when it was in the market
no one came forward. When it was let everybody said,
" Why did you do so ? What a pity you let it ;" and that
was the truth.
The CuLiamve said there was one thing it might be
gratifying to them to know, that Mr. Smith did not owe in-
side or out of the theatre a single shilling. (Hear.)
Mr. &mecca said up to Christmas Mr. Smith had met
with the most brilliant success, and if he had not been
bound up by the stringent arrangement of the double lease,
he might have placed the theatre in such hands as would
have enabled him to pay up the rent fully. Ile had the
most confident opinion that the management of Mr. Smith
would, under the altered arrangements, be successful, as he
knew him to be an honourable and upright man.
A PROPRIETOR wished to know whether Mr. Smith had
the power of letting the theatre for bal masques, which
were considered by many objectionable.
Sir 11. Wenn said the concession had bees made in
the present instance to M. Jullien, as his friends were
anxious to compliment him before leaving the country.
The committee had the power of controlling the lessee.
The report was then received and adopted, and the
officers who went out by rotation re-elected unanimously.
'f hank were then voted to the chairman, which the Earl
of GLENOAL briefly acknowledged, and the meeting
separated.

Kali) iintelimence.

EQUITY COURTS.-SATURDAY.
13zroas TUX Vies-Caufctuka fu leto, fin AIM

WkIICHIT v. MASSRY.

This' and seven other suits by the same plaintiff, came on
again to-day.

The parish of Presthury, in the county of Chester, is of
very great extent, being nearly thirty miles in length in
Wee parts. The earish is divided into 32 townships. The
guts:6one of the:rights:to the rectorial and vicarial, or incum-
bent 'a tithes, in this parish, have been the subject of litiga.
Con in various shapes in tho courts of law and equity for
Dearly t wo hundred years.
•

In 181 C two suits were instituted by the lay rector for the
recovery of tithes in two of the townships. These suits
, were decida in the House of Lords in his favour.
The suit of Dreyer v. hlaudsley was commenced in 1825,
in which in 1830 the court directed suits to be instituted
against the omit. ices in twenty-three townships to recover
bay and other tithes. In obedience to this order, 32 actieux
at law and 119 sure in equity were commenced, in which
the tithe owner succeeded.
These Butts did not embrace five of the thirty two town-
shine, vie., Titheringto Siddington, Tollihrome,
and Capstborpe, and they were not affected by the de-
cisions.

The surviving trustee of the rectorial tithes having died,
his administrator, the Rev. Remy Wright. Glad nine bills
to raise the qucs'ion of the right to the rectorial tithes in
the five above-named townships, claiming the arrears of
tithes for six years.
The main defence to these suits was the limitation of
right of suit created by Lord Tenterden's Act, the 2nd and
3rd Will. IV. c. 100, for shortening the time required in.
claims of modus decimandi, or exemption from or discharge
of tithes. The defendants, the landowners, claimed nn ex-
emption from tithes for a period long antecedent to the
limitation of enjoyment required by the statute as neccmary
to entitle the plaintiff to sac.
This suit occupied the court during three days, when
Mr. Russell, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. It..nshaw, were heard in
the several suits successively for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Wigram and Mr. E. Eagtelwere for the defendants, tie land
owners, in four suits, and Mr. Bacon nud Mr. Lewin for
the defendants, the landowners, in the reniainin four
suits.

Mr. Russell was heard this day in a general ugly in all
the eight suits.

The"facts in the case are far too numerous tied du,l fur a
report ; but the cases are interesting as exhibiting now a
rare appeinu n of the protracted and unritisfactory litiga-
tion to which tithe questions pave rise !.reviously to that
important reform which introduced a compulsory commuta-
tion of tithes.

It is not improbable that the costs of litign.ion within
this ono parish on questions of tithes from early times to
the present has amounted to toe,ooot.
The Vice Chancellor reserved his judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,SArunDAT.

&mama AT NISI Puke &x LONDOT.—BETAILL Cenr JUSISCI JAIATIA

AND A CA. /RYON JURY.

COLLET V. PIOOTT.—ABSAULT.
The defendant in this case keeps a public-house in
Duke's Head-passage, ley-lane, Xi:nate-street, and the
action was brought to recover damages for au assault com-
mitted by him.
The plaintiff's case was that about two o'clock on the
28th April last the plaintiff went into the defendant's house.
with two friends, to have some gin. The person who called
for the gia had not money enough to pay far it, and the plain-
tiff, who had been in the habit of frequenting the house,
said he would pay for it in a quarter of an hour. Mrs.
Pigott, however, snatched up the remainder of the ren and
said they were good-for-nothing fellows to order gin if they
did nut intend to pay fur it. The parties were about to
leave the house, when the plaintiff said to the defendant's
wife, "You're an ugly woman," or " It's a pity there
should be such an ugly woman behind a bar." The de-
fendant then came up and struck the plaintiff violently and
turned him out. At the invitation of a person Named
Nash the plaintiff went int) the house a,;:iiii, when
the defendant seized held of him to force him
out. Tho plainttf held on by the door-post, but
the potman loosed his hold, and the defendant
tripped him up and threw him out, and he fell on the back
of his head. Ile was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
and Ida head was (.I,llsCd. Ile then went home, and he
was attended by a medical man named Hinson. He found
that there was a fracture of the Ault, and the plaintiff was
confined to his bed for a week, and to the Ileum for three
1 weeks ; and his (lector's hill amounted to 3/. 10s. Previous
to the assault th' plaintiff had been in the employ of Mr.
Chandler, a meat salesman. and had a salary of IL per
week, but in consequence of being absent three weeks he
lost that situation.
The defendant's case was, that the plaintiff was in liquor,
though not drunk, end he used very abusive and disgusting
language to Mrs. Pigott. The defendant then carried him
out of the house quietly, but lie came in again, nod the de-
fendant led him to the door and put him out. The plaintiff
thereupon abused the defendant and challenged him to
fight, and a person named Nash came up, and said to the
plaintiff " Don't stand out there kicking up a TOW ; if you
' want to fight come into the house." The plaintiff then
attempted to force himself in against the defendant, and he
' held on by the door poet. The potman came and loosed his
' hold, and the plaintiff thereupon being the worse for
• liquor, fell down, and thus caused the injury which he had
• sustained.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 121.
ll.tavav V. WATSON.—CIII3I. CON.

This was an action to recover damages for criminal con-
versation had with the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant
pleaded not guilty, and that there had been a deed of sepa-
ration between the plaintiff and his wife. To this the
plaintiff replied that before the :deed of separation the
defendant had seduced the-plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Massey Dawson opened the case, and said that the
plaintiff, a tailor, in the year 1330 married Ann, his present
wife, and he lived with her in a state of great happiness for
ne less than twelve year., in which time they had four
children. The defendant about the year 1838 was appren-
ticed to the plaintiff, and it would be proved by the most
satisfactory evidence that in the Tear 1842 the de-
fendant committed the act uron which the present pro-
ceedings were founded. The action was commenced in 1841,
but it was delayed until the present time in coosequelice of
the defendsnt absconding from London, and living, un-
known to the plaintiff, in Liverpool. His residence there
having been discovered, the action was proceeded with; but
the defendant, in order to avoid the consequences of his
misconduct, had since gone to Australia. The plaintiff,
however, had determined to bring the proceedings to a
close, anti it would be the duty of the jury to say what
damages he was entitled to for the wrong which the defen-
dant had done him.
John Hervey, the plaintiff's brother, said that he was
present at the marriage on the Bth July,lB3o, at which
time the plaintiff's wife was about 22 peals of age. He vi-
sited them frequently for 12 years, and said that they lived
happily together. The plaintiff bad four ctileirco, and be
had also an excellent business.
To the Chief Justice—The defendant was apprenticed
in 1537 or 1839, at which time be was about 15 or 16, and
when he ran away he was 19 or 20. Mrs. Harvey was get-
ting on for 40.
The Chief Justice—He induced her to run away, did het
Witness—l suppose so, my lord.
The Chief Justice—l sh..uld rather think the boot was
on the other lea. (A laugh.)
Mrs. Findlay, a midwife, said the plaintiff's conduct was
always very good and very fatherly, and he and his wife
lived very happily and very comfortably tog( titer.
The Chief Justice—Did you see the boy, young Watson?
What sort of a lad was be ?
Witness—Oh, a good looking lad enough. (A laugh.)
Samuel Chivers said that in 1812 he was foreman and
cutter to the plaintiff, who then lived in Lisle-street,
Leicester-square. lie observed familiarities between the
defendant and Mrs. Harvey which ought not to have ex-
isted. One evening he returned to the workshop, after
business hours, to speak to Mr. Harvey, but found the
front don. fast. A servant of the lodger, however, let him
in, and as he could not find Mr. Ilarvey in the house,
he went to the back shop to look for him. lie
therewas surprisedw ai
a mteothsieen g a
on light
fire. there, andeh therefore
e fwe
eae f
s afraideeee a
the door open, and then he saw the plaintiff's wife and the
defendant in the act of adultery. lie had no opportunity
to tell the plaintiff for some few days ; but one morning,
when he went, he found the place in confusion, and the
plaintiff said something about his wife. Witness then told
him he had seen the same thing a few days before.
The Chief Justice—lt was very wrong of you not to

tell him before.
Witnesa—Knowing both Mr. and Mrs. Harvey, I (lid
not like to tell him. The plaintiff challenged youm; Wat-
son with being in his wife's bedroom, and he did n ,t. deny
it, but he trembled like a leaf. The plaintiff then turned
him out of the house ; but Mrs. Harvey was ohstiltate, and
did not have for a day or two. She had an allowance, but.
it (lid not last ling.
The Chief Justice summed up, and mid that this action
had slept for a number of years, and he did not understand
why tiny went on now, except it was that they Dad found out
that the defendant had ;4ot some property. It might be
that whilst the defendant was" digging " in Australia,. the
were trying to have " a dig" at his property here. (A laugh.
1 Mr. Massey Dawson had enlarged upon the duty of appren.
bees to their masters, but there was also a duty ost the
other side, and he had no doubt that the father of this. lad
bitterly complainea that the plaintiff had .Hoa
rd hie wife
to seduce him. The jury knew enough of huma ,astute to
know that there eouldbe no very violent arts of love and
seduction practisrd by • lad of 19 er 20 upon a woman of 40,
land as to dama_es, why the plaintiff had last a wife, who
I by going away hail become unable to sechtee any more of.,_
his apprentices.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 501.
Mr. Smjeant 13yles subsequently applied, upon affP,neit,,
for ii,,eedy execution. The plaintiff hat not known where
the defendant was for a long while until recently, vs ben he
went to have a ghee of ale at a house in Liver pool; he
was served by his own wife, who he found was limng there
with the di &admit, wan was proprietor of the blouse. The
defendant, he v.nderstood, was now about to leave for
Australia.
The Chic; Justice—Mr. Massry Itaw.,on said he was
gone, and I have no doubt that statement much Mem need
the jar:, ; for they would never have given such an amount
of daraages, unless they thou ;Oa that gold with the defen-
difl% was plentiful as dirt.
-dr. Serjeant Bytes said it was right, the defendant had
I gore, but he had left some property iu this country.
i The Chief J ustice refused the applicatien. lye thought
the plaintiff ought to have been more careful, and not have

'Lone,' his apprentices to be ruined by his wife. H.
thouzht the parents of this young man had quite IS mach
/01.1011 to complain as the plaintiff Lad.

DIALUUWeI ANL Wu' C. THONIPSON.—FALSE IMPRIPOM-

316 NT.

This was an action to incover damage■ for fal.e imprison-
ment of the female plaintiff; and the pleas werecut guilty,
and that the defendant bad given her into custody, because
abe bad obtained certain goods from him tinder ink* pre-
tences. The action prom out of circumstances wiicb have
been already several times before the public.
The Chief Justice in summing up said—Under all the
circumstances, it was for the jury to say what amount
of damage the plaintiffs had sustained.
The jury consulted together for some time, and then
inquired whether a verdict for 40s. would carry costs. But
this question his Lordship declined to sewer. ANT
some further consideration, a verdict was found for the plain-
tiffs ; d►mages IW.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—SATtItn.a.
lIITTWINI AT Neat Pstca AT Cleuxeste.—navon Till LOAD Call, 1
11111031 ADO • 14PICIAL JCIIT.
LELEAN v. WRIGHT.—MINING SHARES.
This sou an action to recover the sum of 1,30/. for 6,,0
shares in a mine called "The Dieu Great Copper Mine, I
in the parish of Peninerfa, in the musty of Carnarvoe,"
which it was alleged the defendant had bought of the '
plaintiff, a mitring agent, and 'he manager of the mine in I
question. The defendant resides at Brentercod.
Mr. Junes and Mr. Brewer sppeared for the plaintiff ; 4
and Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Quails teethe defendant.
The plaintiff, William Lela an, was called to ruin that
the &tendert had agreed to purchase the shares in gun-
ties at 2/. 10s. per share; that he bought the 600 shares for I
the defendant, but be atterwards refused to take them.
The witness tendered the share, to the defendant, who said I
his solicitor advised him that they could not be legally i
transferred.
On cross-elimination by Mr. Bramwell, the witness said I
—The mine wit divided into 8,000 shares, at 3/.
each, with • deposit of 101. per share. The office." I
were at 76, Hind William-street. in the City,
lam the manager of the mine. The shares were worth
13s. per share last week—they have fallen 30s. a share.
Notwithstanding the diminution in price the mine has
continued to improve. I am one of the committee of ma
nagemeot. Of the twelve " esquires" named in the pro-
spectus, as the directors, I am one. " Edward James
Winter, Esq," is another. He is • carpenter at Brentwood,
and a limilder. I believe. I don't know the profession or
business of " Edward Winter, Esq." " Alfred Itodriquee,
Xeq.," is a printer in Horgan-street. " William Lelean, '
Esq., is myself. Witness Garner, Hsq.," is employed in
Ireland; and " Benjamin Jones, Esq., ' is a flannel mer-
chant and • dealer in all things. (Laughter.) The com-
mittee undertook to pay 7,3001. for the mine. 6,0002 was I
to be paid to "Captain" John N. Hughes, one of the
" esquires," and 2.6004. to the committee. We have paid
4,7501. out' f it. The direeters were to receive 300 31.
.1
shares at 2/. 101 , which would Le • bonus of 1501. each, or
I,BOUI altuattber. I did not tell Mr. Wright, when he
called on me, that I had no interest in the mine, except
as one of its officers. I told him I knew • gentleman who
was going to France. and who would probably sell his I
shares. That was on the 27th April. He had left authority
to sell h's shares before he went. It was Mr. William
White. 'Nine cf the 601) shares were mine. I bought them
for Mr. 'Wright. I did Got tell Mr. Wright that then was
machinery on the mile. There lea small crusher there. I
did not tell defendant that 21. 104 mu the market price.
It is pos.ible that defendant said he wished to p and en
the mine before lie purchased. I bought 300 of the shares
from White, one of the director', and 200 from G ,
another dir.ctor. They were shares allotted to those per-
sons es director'. I also bought 100 of Thomas Hunt, "as '
Independent gentleman."
Mr. Bramwell—Without any visible means of existence
I suppese ? (Laughter.)—l don't know. The shares were
allotted to Hunt, I believe. I am new the holder of up-
wards of 700 sheen. I bought the 400 shares to sell to Mr.
Wright instead of selling any of my own. I swear that
Mr. Wright did not afterwards refuse to take the shares.
Mr. Stevens, of Lombard-street, had sane shares. I am the
owner of other m'niog property. Before If4B 1 was cap-
tain of a ship for many years.
Mr. Thompson wit called to prove that the shares had
been tendered to the defendant.
James Lane—l am clerk to my father, who is a jobber in
the market. I remember the Dina shares coming out.
We bad an order to purchase them at 31. 10". in March,
but I could not buy them for leas than 4!. 10s. Some time
after that I was uffered 2/. a share, but could not sell for
less than 21. 10s.
Crees-examened—l don't know who authorised us to pur-
chase the shares. I don't think it was either of the 12
" esquires" un the preemetus. I don't know any of them.
Mr. Lelean offered me 21. each for the shares.
Mr. Carpenter, managing director of the " English and
Foreign Life and Fire Assurance Company," said he had
200 stiates, upon which 12s. 61. each had, been paid. A
Mies Parr applied to him for 50 shares. He sold her 30 at
6/. premium in March last. He had also sold Lord Erskine
30 shares at 26*. premium a short time ago. He thought
the mine to he • capital investment, and would,buy more
shares if be had mosey to invest.
This was the plaintiff's ease.
Mr. Bramwell submitted that no case had been made out.
Here was a private company, trading under no act of par-
liament, and partners could not be forced upon them with-
out their contest. What esidence was there of any such
come in the present case ?
The Chief Baron said that he could not understand how
shares could be transferred as they seemed to have boen in
the present case, like chairs and tables. Shares in • part-
nership could not be sold. Suppose, instead of its being a
mining cimpivay, it was •book business in Paternoster-row ?
There must be some contract or agreement between the
'harebell!, es to transfer shares in this way.
Mr. James said that was virtually so. Under the cost
book system, which was specially excepted from the opera-
tion of the Joint-Stock Companies Act, by the 30th section,
and by which mines were conducted, shares could be trans-
hived as they bad been in the present case.
Mr. Lelean was then recalled to prove that the mine in
question was conducted under the cost-book system.
The learned counsel consulted for a short time, after
which
Mr. James said that they had agreed to take back the
shares, and that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff
for 1001.
Verdict accordingly.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—SATURDAY.
Hamm Ma. COlOll/43011,11 Fan.
IN RR WILLIAMS AND MARCHANT.

This well-known ease has been frequently before the
court. To-day was the dividend meeting in the separate
estate of each of the bankrupts, the joint estate having paid
twenty shillings in the pound.
Mr. Hartley tendered • proof against the estate of Mr.
Marehant, en behalf of a WO named Miss Beareoek, fur
1201., which she claimed in consequence of a breach of pro-
mise of marriage.
His Honour asked if there was a judgment?
Mr. Hartley—No.
The Commissioner—Then there is no debt.
Mr. Hartley—But there is a contract in writing.
The Commiriioner—l %mild recommend you to look at
the case " Experts Chaska." There is no use in discuseieg
the matter.
Mr. Hartley—There is a written contract, whereby Mr.
Merchant engages to pay the lady 401. a year in quarterly
payments.
The Commissioner (after looking at the paper)—This is
not a contract to many, but to pay so much a year. What
is the mesh:tuition ?
Mr. Hartley—That they lived together as man and wife.
Ile turned round and married another lady, and left her
in the lurch.
The Commissioner—How can an immoral act be a consi-
deration ? You surely do not contend that living in • state
of concubinage would he a good consideration.
Mr. Henley—Certainly nut.
The Commitsioner.—Then what is the consideration?
There is no other.
Mr. Plews (representing the assignees), said there had
been twelve or fourteen meetings under this estate, extend-
ing over nearly two years, during which time this lady
might have preferred her claim. In 1352, she had brought
an action against lie. Merchant, setting out the contract ;
there was • demurrer, on the ground of want of considera-
; eel judgment was given for the bankrupt.
Ilowsur said if the question had been loud and
decided is • court of justice, it was no part of his business
to rehear it. If lonics did not choose to come forward
at the proper time, they could not be allowed, when the
estate wss ready for distrthution, to stay the dividend. No
person was at liberty to eome, 18 months after a bank-
ruptcy. and stay a dividend by preferring some stale claim.
Proof rejected.
Dlr. Bagley male a claim to prove for 4,0001., on behalf
of Mr. David Price, of Liverewl, who had been in part-
nership with Mr Williams and a Mr. Akroyd, in some
contracts at Holyhead, Birkenhead, and other places. The
Claim was in respect of alleged profit on these cAitracts.
The bankrupt denied that there hid been any such pro-
fit. The question was entirely one of account, and It was
stated that the wealth, had not been fully taken.
His Homier said it was too late to set up a elaim of this
kind. Mr. Price had allowed it to sleep foe • yeas and a
ball, sad cow, when he found that a consider.ble surplus
was otweieg to Mr. Williams. be sought to tie it all up by
this claim. Mr. Pennell, the ofikial assignee, bad never
beard of it till that day. If he had any just claim he might
Dnag an action against Mr. Williams. The claim must be
rejected.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.--BAruzDAT.
Niw Commisstoxsa.

The appoistment of a sew eonmealioser ocesvioned
by the rrrianation of the Chief Commissioner. bas
not, it is understand, been Seed upon. The government
Gould not make a better **levies tbas Mr. Cooke, the bar-
/Sim Ile is admitted by all parties to be eminently quai-
led for the wimat commisioaership.

IX TU* turns or JAM►r RILIIVOND SNICTX..-PrrITION
1111111..1kD.

This insolvent, who had been a licensed vidualler in
Clare-market, and latterly en auctioneer In New Oxford-
Street was huller heard under the Protection Let.
Mr. liernsed and Mr. Reed oryded ; Mr. Cooks sap-
ported.
The gnestiza radsaal was labeller the debts exceeded
3001 u the insolvent was a trader. He alleged th,t same 1
it his creditors bad released Ina by a deed, and it turned
Cut that althousblbsy hid hun pnidl a composition, they
bad not at the ass of sea mama assented the deed of
regime.
Mr. Codas giblet flat the peeitica mid set be war

tithed, as the deed of release was not executed when they
were paid.
The insolvent stated that the pirtics had signed the deed
witt‘in the last few slats.
Mr. Ci.oke said A made no difference.
Mr. Sargood prayed that the petition might be dismissed,
as the debts were berm! 30(V.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips held that as the deed was not
executed at the time of the petition the debts must be con-
sidered in existence, although the composition had been
paid. As that was the cue the petition must be dismissed.
the petitivn was accordingly dismissed.

IN 112 JORX LONO.—NoxEL CASE.
This insolvent, a sergeant in the metropolitan police, N
divi•ion, was heard under the Pr .tection Act.
Mr. Sirgood opposed for a creditor named Bolt, and Mr.
Dowse supported.
Formerly the insolvent was a cattle-dealer near Taun-
ton, where Bult, the opposing creditor, was a farmer. Ile
had been some years in the police force, and now had 245.
a week. Bolt sued him for 164. 101. for some sheep, and
the plea was the statute of limitations. The costs were 181.,
and would have been under 31. by default. A second ac-
tion was brought on the judgment in order to get the insol-
vent into prison ; and when all was ready he defeated it by
petitioning under the Protection Act. The question raised
was, whether there was a debt incurred for the 181. costs
without a reasonable expectation of payment, or whether
there had been a vexatious defence.
Mr. Sargood insisted that there bad been no reasonable
expectation of payment. The debt and coats now amounted
to 351.
Mr. Dowse contended that reference could not be had to
the first action, as there was now a second judgment, and
therefore there could be no vexatious defence.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was of opinion that be could
not hold that the insolvent had no reasonable expectation
of paying the costs. It was not such a debt as was contem-
plated by the act. As to a vexations defence, the legislature
had omitted all mention of it in the Protection Act, although
it was a specific ground of offence under the Prisoners Act.
lie therefore named a day for the final order, with, of
course, protection.