The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-17 00:00:00

ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION' OF HER
MAJESTY'S THEATRE.

In the Ball Court, on Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Erle,
an action was brought against Mr. Lumley, the well-known
lessee and manager of her Majesty's Theatre, to recover
possession of the Opera House. There were several plain-
tiffs joined in action—Mr. Hughes, an attorney at Worces-
ter ; Messrs. Lyon and Barnes, attorneys in London ; and
Mr. Storer, a gentleman of fortune, who had all advanced
money to Mr. Lumley at different times to carry on the
theatre. Each of these persons had recovered judgments
against Mr. Lumley, and proceedings were taken by them
by elegit, as it is called, in order to recover possession of the
Opera House, of which Mr. Lumley had a long lease. The
plaintiff's case consisted in putting in the judgments and
the registration thereof, and the issue of the inquisition of
digit, and the sheriff's return. As various very important
questions of law were subsequently raised in the case, the
dates became important ; and it appeared that Mr. Hughes
had recovered a judgment for 1,1431. 10s. on the 10th of
August, 1852. This judgment was registered with the
Senior Master of the Common Pleas on the same day, and
on the 11th it was registered in Middlesex, and the writ to
the sheriff was issued on the 4th of November. Mr. Storer's
judgment was for 2,5691., on the 22nd of July, 1852, and
was registered on the 22nd of July at the Common Pleas;
on the 4th of January it was registered in Middlesex and
the writ issued to the sheriff the same day. Messrs. Lyon
and Barnes's judgment was on the 18th of September, 1852,
for 22,4821. 16s. 2d; was registered in the Common Pleas
the 18th of December, 1852, in Middlesex on the 20th of
December, 1852, and the writ lodged the same day. The
writs remained at the sheriff's office till the 26th of January,
1853, when they were all executed. The inquisition
was in the common form, and possession of the Opera
House was awarded to Hughes under the eligit until his
judgment was satisfied ; it was then awarded to Storer to
hold subject to the interest of Hughes, and as to Lyon and
Barnes, return was made that the sheriff could not deliver
possession to them, as it had already been awarded to
Hughes and Storer. Upon these judgments and proceed-
ings the present action was brought ; and it was contended
that one other of the plaintiffs was entitled to recover pos-
session, Hughes being, as it was contended, the person
entitled to priority.
Mr. Noggins submitted, first, that Hughes was not en-
-tared to recover; Storer's judgment was the first registered.
If that were so, the award of possession by the sheriff to
Hughes was inoperative ; and so Hughes had no right to re-
cover. Then, also, as to Lyon and Barnes, they had no title
at all to recover, as no possession had been awarded to them
by the sheriff.
Mr. Justice Erle directed a verdict for the plaintiff
Hughes, with leave to Mr. Hoggins to enter a verdict for
the defendant, or vary it according to the rights of the
parties.

Mr. Hogging then said that, as to Mr. Hughes, there was
another answer, that the contract on which the judgment was
iecovered was usurious, and so void, under the statute of the
12th Anne, chap. 16, being for more than £5 per cent. per
annum on the security of lands. The advance made by Mr.
Hughes was £l,OOO, and the instrument securing it was a
warrant of attorney for £1,140, and the security of the lease
was referred to.

Mr. Hughes, the plaintiff, was called to prove the amount
of the advance, but on cross-examination he stated that the
advance had been made under an agreement in writing ; on
which a discussion took place as to whether a notice to pro-

_ - OOLICO to 1.
duce, served on the defendant, was sufficient to call on him
to produce the agreement, or enable the defendant to give
secondary evidence of it.
Mr. Justice Erle said the question raised, of whether a
transaction of this kind was usury or not, was a very im-
portant one, and had lately been before Vice-Chancellor
Kindersley, in the case of Lane v. Horlock. He thought
it best, therefore, to admit the evidence, subject to the opi-
nion of the Court whether it was admissible or not, under
the notice to produce.
Mr. Hughes was then examined, and admitted that the
transaction was as had been stated ; that after paying tra-
velling and other expenses, he would have been entitled to
more than £5 per cent. on the advance out of the £1,140.
Mr. Hoggins then said there was a third defence as to
Hughes, namely, that his judgment had been satisfied by
payment. He then called for an agreement, which was pro-
duced, which set forth an agreement by Hughes to transfer
all his interest in the Opera House, under his judgment, to
Mr. Gye for a sum of £5,000, which had been paid. by Mr.
Gye to Mr. Hughes, and therefore it was contended that
his judgment for £1,140 was satisfied; and so all his in-
terest under his judgment was paid and satisfied.
Mr. Hughes admitted that he had received the £5,000, but
stated that he had paid upwards of £3,000 for ground rent
and other matters, and was liable for the accruing rent; he
also said that he had been called on to repay the £5,000, on
the ground that he had not delivered up possession of the
Opera House to Mr. Gye.
For the plaintiff, Mr. Hughes, it was contended that the
agreement put in was a mere agreement for a lease, and did
not at. all affect the question, and that the judgment was
still unsatisfied.

Mr. Justice Erie was at first inclined to think th.pavTant
z. oi Lou u,oot, balaJlieU ue juuguleuL of a 1 . gus;
after reading the agreement, his lordship said that he
thought it was not intended by the agreement that
Hughes's interest should be absolutely determined, for if so
Gye would then lose his interest.
Is w Ls-a -Ovum 4xx -mat veruict S110111(1 be taKen tor
the plaintiff Hughes, subject to leave reserved to Mr. Hog-
gins to move to enter it for the defendant on the points
raised, or turn the questions into a special case.
Verdict accordingly.

THE STRIKES IN THE MANUFACTURING

DISTRICTS.

BURNLEY.

At Burnley, the masters at each mill were accessible to
their workpeople on Saturday morning, and many of the
operatives sought interviews. It was found that great
numbers were already in a state of much destitution, and
were ready to give up all connexion with the combinations,
but still the employers are of opinion that any attempt to
re-open their mills at present would be premature. The
employers' first meeting after the close of the mills, does not
take place for some days.
BACITP.

At Bacup the operatives have been peaceable. No over-
tures have been made by the people to induce the employers
to re-open their mills, which there is a talk of keeping closed
for three months, unless trade should very much improve.
The stocks of goods on hand in that neighbourhood are very
large, and if the operatives and their employers were
reconciled to-morrow, it is supposed that the manufacturers
would not be induced to run their machinery more than
three days per week. None of the funds subscribed to the
turn-outs are shared either by the people at Bacup or
Burnley ; and the working-men's committee, on whom the
responsibility devolves of causing the strike at Bacup, have
literally nothing to distribute among the workpcople. Since
the strike, they have only been able to divide ls. 4d. per
head, avid that dividend exhausted their funds. Some of
them go out singing in neighbouring towns, and selling
ballads, and derive a miserable pittance by begging from
door to door.