The Express.
London, England, 1850-02-05 00:00:00

?Gala Intelltgence.

Ilona Ciace tr.—The teemed judges copulated for the Home Cir.
cult, Chief Justice Wilde ant Mr. Justice Moult., have flied the
following days for attending in the different counties :-11ertford.
shire, Tuesday, Feb. 26; Dose; Monday, !Link 4; Bum; Monday,
March II; Lent, Monday, March le; and duney, Wednesday,
March 27.

EQUITY COURTS.—YaorrzsDAY.
BCTORS TN{ LORD CHANcr,LLon, To% MATTI* OF T. ROLM
TVS °RAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANT V. DIRER.—
BREACH or INJUNCTION.—INTZRLST or A JUDO. IN
TRZ SUB/ICT OP A SUIT.

- - -
This was a motion to discharge an order of the Vice-Chan.
eellor of England for eommittirg the defendant to the
Queen's Prison for breach of as injunction of the c nrt, and
for discharging the order of injunction also, on the ground
that it was an order of the Lord Chancellor
affirming an order of the Via-Chancellor, and
that as his Lordship was before and at the
time of making the order a shareholder in the
plaintirs company the order ought to be treated as a
sanity on the general principle of law and equity, that no
person ought to be a ju le in his own cause or in a cause in
which he was an interested party. These being the chief
grounds of the motion, the Lord Chancellor called the
Master of the Rolls to sit with him to hear the miasmata of
counsel.

From the statements of Mr. D said, with whom was Mr.
&mythic', in support of the motion, it appeared that in
1793 the plaintiffs obtained en ant of Parliament for the con-
strucuon of the Grand Junction Canal, with pimen
of compulsory purchase of lands on the line.
This power was confined to the purchase of freehold
lands only. The canal ran through the maw,' of Rick-
manswortn, and the company purchased the interest of a
oopyhold tenant, entitled in fee, named Skidmore, who con-
veyed his interest by deed, without surrender to their use,
and gave a bond of indemnity against all 6:aims by his
heir, or others deriving under him. Mr. Dimes, en attorney,
became lord of the manor of Rlakmaneworth in 1833, and
finding nu tenant of the copyhold property hell by Skid-
more, he seined ft into his urn hands for want of a tenant.
Negotiations took place between him and the plaintiffs,
without any satisfactory results. Mr. Dimes broaght an
action of ejectment against the plaintiffs in 1838,
and obtained a judgment in 1838, entitling him to
the pwaession of that pan of the lands through
which the canal ran for about half a mile, an-. of the vital
also, and postesminn was given to him by the sheriff. The
plaintiffs then flied their bill in hsnoery, stating the pur-
chase .ront Skidmore, and charging that his heir wan pre-
sented by :Ite enrapany for adaniwion to Dimes to that ,art
of the copyhold sold to the plaintiffs, and wag refused by
Dim. s, &c. ,to injunction, es rayed by the bill, was
granted by the ViceiCluuseellor of England to restrain
Daum from stopping the navigation of the canal. The order
Ise that **Ain was add aid by she Lard Obeheellor. The

canes was beard In 1816 by the ViessChaeoellor, who decreed
that Dimes was bound to admit the heir et Skidmore (see
13 Simms, 402) as a trustee for the plaintiffs upon paint( nt
of the proper fine and fees which the plaintiffs had previously
paid iwo wart, aed the itjunation against Dimes was con.
gland. That donee we+, upon appeal, slitmed by the
Lord Chancellor. After that, Divan discovered ikat his
lordship was a holder of 92 shares in the canal, end held 42
in Hum before the litigation began, end acquired 60 during
the litigation. An application was thou made to his lord
ship to cancel the lest mentioned order as • nullity, on the
principle before mentioned, out without any imontatloawhat.
stoner on his lordship's integrity. His lordship directed that
motion to be beard by the Master of the Rolle, who refined
it upon the grounds Milani at length in bilijadgmitnt. (8 •
13 " Jurist,' p. 603.) Mr. Dimes afterwards took steps to
interrupt the navigation of the canal by the plaintiffs, In
breach of the order of injunction, and for that an application
was made on the 10th of December last, by the plaintiffs to
the Vice Chancellor, who made the order for committing
Mr. Dimes. A motion with • Cow to his dinharge we.
roads to the Court of Queen's Bench, and refused, on the
ground that they had no jurisdiction to discharge the Vice
Chancellor's order. The 1 d counsel, after stating at
great length the various orders and proceedings, laid it down
es an incontrovertible principle governing all the oourts, that
an undisclosed interest in the subject matter of a
suit ditgoalified a person from being a judge
in the matter and he cited several MCI from the reports,
beginning with " Coke's lisporta," snit ending with
" Queen's Bench Reports." He had not concluded his
arguments at the risiag of the court at 4 o'clock. The fur-
ther hearing was then adjourned to Wednesday.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.

BlTTlNuilit $llll

II CAM JUNIUS WILDA AND ♦ COMMON
VIT.

HUDSPETH V. YARROLD IACTI OK HT EN ACTOR TO
HICOV/IR HID SALARY. _ . .

From the opening statement of the learned counsel, it
appeared that this was an Wien brought against Mrs. Tar
Hold, as the lessee of the refill n Theatre, in the White-
ehapel road, by the plaintfff, who was an actor, to recover the
sum of 201. Its. Bd., due to him as salary, at the rate et 21. a
week. The plaintiff claimed the above-mentioned sum for
haeirg acted at the theatre between December, 1848. and
September, 1849. The learned counsel then proceeded to
call the following evidence
Charles Dervish, examined by Mr. Joyce—Witness was
formerly secretary at the Pavilinn Theatre. Mr. Yarnold
was formerly the lessee of the theatre, and at his death Mrs.
Yarnold, the defendant, became the loses. The plaintiff
was engaged to act at the theatre in November, 1848, and he
first cause to the theatre in the following December. The
plaintiff remained at the Paeilisn Theatre after Mr. Kers-
*honer became the manager. Witness left the theatre in
May, 1819, and the plaintiff was then still there.
Cross-examined by Mr. Phinn—Theatrical engagements
were generally for the season. The season lasts for the year.
Letters were then put in, written in November, 1848,
by the secretary of the detadent to the plaintiff,
offering him a weekly salary of 21. a week and a hall yearly
benefit.

Crow-rnamination trontlnnei—The plaintiff played in the
first low comedy. In the month of May, 1849, the defendant,
being unable to pay the salaries of the actors, gave them up
the theatre for a fortnight, and they were to pay themaelers
out of the promeda of the theatre. This " Commonwealth"
lasted far abort three week•.
Chief Justice Wade—What ie meant by a Commonwealth
at the theatre ?

Mr. Phinn Mr.. Yarnold was deposed, my lord.
(Laughter.)
Cnief Justice Wilde—There was a revolution, I euppoee /
(Laught.r.)
Mr. Pninn—Exactly so, my lord.
Cro•s examination resumed—Under the Commonwealth
enough was produced to pal• the salaries of the actors. A
notice was first put up in the green-room of the theatre on
the 4th of May, 1849, and afterwards on the 16th of May to
the effect that the theatre would close in a fortnight
after the date of the notice. In order for a season to end
according to theatrical waste, a month's notice ought to be
.give a.
Re-examined by Mr. Joyee—The" Commonwealth" lasted
17 dam and after that time Mrs. Yaraold resumed her
sway.
Thomas Giles Blake, examined by Mr. Joyce.—Witness
wart ngsged to act at the Pavilion Theatre in 1848 by the
defendant. Recollected the plaintiff coming to act at the
theatre. Remembered the Christmas pantomime, and
tio.ught that the plaintiff did not amuse the audience bet'ore
that time. Witness was not engaged at the theatre at all,
but ►e played for friendship, and his remuneration was for
friendship. (A laugh.) Witnees's engsgemeut terminated
is August, 1848, and the plaintiff woe pl‘t ing before that
time. Witness, alter the death of Mr. Y -,rnold, was em
ployed as a dramatic author. Witness saw Mrs. Yarnold
about those productions, who paid him fur them. Witness
did not know when the theatre closed.

Cross-examined be Mr. Phinn—Witneu went sometimes
to witness his own yroduction. A Mr. Joseph Kerschener
was the managing director of the theatre. Witness volun-
teered to settle some difference between Mr. Kareckener and
Yernold. Mrs. Yarnold was the reer•gnieed lessee of
the theatre. Witness never saw and deed 01 partnership.
Mr. Phinn, nn basalt of the defendant, submitted teat
the plaintiff must be nonsuiti d on the gtoand that the ori-
ginal contract was made by Mr. Tanabe, and there was no
evidence to a, w that Mrs. Yarnold continued the contract.
The Chief Justice said, he thought that as the plaintiff
was brund acting at the theatre atter the time of Mr. "'Jer-
rold, it was evidence to go to tee jury of the continuance of
the contract by Mre. Yarnold. It, however, the legal result
ahoul•1 be that the contract was not continued, the 1 d
counsel would have leave ti move.
Mr. Pninn then addressed the jury for the defendant, and
said that the present action was an unworthy attempt to tie
the defendant with a charge for whie4 he knew she was not'
st.ore liable, because atter Mr. Yfirnold's dearth there was a
partnership existing between Mr. Kerschener and Mrs. Tar-
nold. If defendant was entitled to anything, it was not
more than five guineas.
The following witnesses were then called on behalf of the
defendant.
Mr. Henry Swann, examined by Mr. Phinn—Witness
was a solicitor, residing at Great Knight Ityderldreet,
Doctor's Commons. %Vim% as was the att.-sting warm es to
the d •cd of partner:lip now produced, dated May 19, 1849,
between Joseph Kempen. nor and Emma Yersiold, the de-
fendant. The partnership commenced awe k after the
date of the deed, and was to endure to the 24th of March,
1652. . _

tl
Mr. George Wilson, examined by Mr. Phinn
WVness wee acting-manager at the Pavilion T Juane in 1849.
Commenced in the beginning of April, 1849, to act M that
capacity, and continu, d to do so up to the time of the
establishment of the Commonwealth. After Whit-Monday,
1849, Mr. K•nchener to k the sole management of the
theatre. Witness cmmunicated to the company, before the
actual partnership commenced, tint the pertuenhip had
been agreed non. The planatiff was present when this
commusication wee made. Witness told tne company t,.at
in future Mr. Kerachener would be jeintly iiah:e wi,h the
dchndent for the salaries, lad that it was supposed he had
plenty of funds.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joyce—Witness saw the plaintiff
acting at the theatre u late as August, 1849.
Mr. Joyce having addressed the jury in reply,
The Lord Chief Justice summed up, and left it to the

jury fist to ssy whether or not the eont;;et which had b en
originally made by Mr. Yarnold was renewed by the de.
fondant ; secondly, whether or not the claim of the plaintiff
commenced from Dec., 181.4, to &pt., 1819, or from Marsh,
1848, to Sept. 1849 ; and whether or not, after the 28th of
May, 1849, the plaintiff looked to Mr. Kerechener to pay him
as well as ifra `foretold. _

- ----._.
The jury, after an absence of an hour, returned into court
with a verdict for the plaintiff. damages 111., and gave it as
their opinion that, after the 28th of May,1849, Mrs. Yarnold
and Mr. Kerschener were partners, and therefore Mrs. Yar-
nold was not alone liable for every salary due to the plaintiff
after that time. _ _ .

Oa the application of Mr. Joym to certify that the case
was a proper ease t 3 be tried in a superior court, the Chief
Ju.tice refused to do too.
The Court then proceeded to try the causa of " Gander v.
B`ieidrick," which was an action for en improper seizure of
the plaintiff's goods. The details of the case, however, were
of no public interest.