The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-22 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
“TORS TOR LORD COANCtLLOR, IN LINCOLN'S INN OALL, MI DAT,
AT TtN.

1 Appeals.
Cran,bny v. Collins, Atty.. Geo. v. Mayor of Towke V. Harvey, per
farther directions Exeter ear:replias c. order
Good4on v. Ellison, • fortb4direedenta, Bacon tr. Procter, api.
apnea', lobe spoke to part heard Llvcrucy V. Lis may. do.
Atty.-Gen. v. Diorama, Manama T. Rose, ap. Atty.-Gen. V. Jolliffe,
ditto peal, per miler and Same r. Samc, 1
Stevens v. Guppy, and linatebbull v. Harvey, appeals and'. pcti.
Same v. Same, ditto appeal lions.
VICE.CHANCRLLOR'S COURT.
111/0A I Tilt TICZ-C•ANC LLLLL , IX LINCOLN', INN, TRIS DAT, AT
lIALV-PAIIT TBD•
tinny and further Directions.
Gummy v. Smith, fur- Walker v. Hardman,
tiler dir. and costs exceptions, mu
Same •. Orme, ditto sets
Lowe v. Russell. ditto Seymour!. if nydon,do.
Sidden v. bediard, ex. Sanie v. Same, do..
ceptions and pet. Price v. Turner, fur-
Revlon v. Whitley, ther directions, an 4
further directions costs.
and costs Jontsi v Addcnbrooke,
Green v. Jackson, ditto exceptions
Welker v. Goodwin, I Dirkett v. Birkett, fur.
exceptions, tnu sets ther directions and
costa

Fixer
Tilbury v. Wakefield,
to be spoke to
Chapman •. Schroder,
further directions, to
be spoke to
Conlin' v. Same, &Ho
Horn v. Horn, •to be
spoke !?

Sc.lt •. Hernoton exc,

7;"0:;e:t..;: farther dl

rectlona part heard
Napier v Napier, ex-
ceptiuus, prat bawd

ROLLS COURT.

CAUSIC3, PCRTbIR /11.111

ECTIC1;171,A1111 PETITISY
AT NINA IN TPA LORI
Cunynahanie T. Eldon,
petition
Howard v. Jones, ditto
In re Griffiths, ditto
Beaumont v. Paine, do.
Mastery T. Bod?n, fur-
ther directions
Same v. Same, petition
Jones v. Hone, ditto. .
Page V. ?dance, ditto
Birkett
furtherAirertimis
Wood r. Wood. tlitto
Kendall,

:%, itY CO:iliNT, THIS
Eirington T. EiTingtds.
petition
EdwrlL T. Lowden,

Port v. Knight, pet.
Ex parte Jot-dices of
Coventry, ditto
Ex-parte Same, ditto
Eel arte Some, ditto
Lamb v. Conroe, ditto
/. Manly, fur-
ther flire4 tions
Same v. Same, petition
bine.; v. Champ! .n, da.
Macintosh v. Towns-
end, ditto

cause
Jones v. Stephens, do.
Ex-parte Eames, peti-
tion
Wetherby v. Shepherd,
(Mtn.. .
do.
liirkman v. Ilintrinsn,
ditto
-384
tnnr°l42lr.ePV:r.lialierig,°lt 'Ma
Campbell v. CtrirPell.
Cut thee dirbetioov
'ln re Thornron's Es-
° tales, petition
Waring v. Warlito,.do.
Ctroterton tronroug,
I ditto
hail V. Prichard, fur-
-1 . thts,direetions

Ir;re"lWel.. 6. ditto
Wrigley V. Wrigley,do.
Attorney-Genets& v.
Fear, r•+u'e

Brnnett r. Gar Ale. Pet
Steuart V. Garnett, du.
Ford v. Kennelly, fur.
ther directions

enure
TiolEritl v. Eleres,ret.
Attortiey-General v.
Vigor. (Pito
Clarke v. I:orri Or.

monde, ditto
Lockwood v. Lock-

Same V. Smne. petition
Shaftesbury v. Marlbo-
rough, ditto

cerise
Bruce •. Kenlock,

LA IV INTE'LLIGIENCE.

COURT Or CHANCERY, Jtrt.v 2L
COVENT-OARPEIN
CONS? u nalfillit
The Lorin CHANCE tto* observed, that the only tieing which
now prevented him from ordering the money in the hands of the
Receiver to be paid into Court was, that the salary to be paid to
that individual had not been agreed on; but his Lordship thought
that circumstance was no sufficient reason why the order should not
be made, upon something being proposed as the salary tobe paid.
Mr. HEALD informed his Lordship that an agreement had been
come to as to the sum to be fixed for the salary since the hearing of
the motion
The ,LORD CHANCELT.OR remarked, that the rest question,
then, in this case appeared to be, not whether there was any money
in the hands of the Receiver which ought to be considered to belong
to the theatre, but whether any of the funds bad been appropriated
to purposes contrary -to the order which bad been made by this
Court ? •
Mr. HEALD said that the Master had made his report epee the
hearing of the motion.
The Loan CHANCET.LOR had not been attire pr that circum-
stance, and desired to be furnished with the Report before he said
more on the subject. Ile thought it however but due to'Sli. Ro-
bertson to say, that in treating the casein the manner he (the Lord
Charalor) had done, he by no means intended to have it supposed
that he considered that gentleman had improperly withheld the
money received by him. But if the affairs of Covent-garden
Theatre were to be under the directions of this Court, tke Receiver
of that theatre must conform himself exactly to those rules and
principles by which this Court required all other Receivers to regulate
their conduct. In looking again at the Decree which the Vice-
Chancellor had made in this cause, Ida Lordship found great
difficulty in reconciling it with the orders which he had himself
made.
Mr. HEALD observed, that as Counsel for the Receiver, he con-
sidered that decree not to affect his client nor did lie think be had

ally thing to do with it.
The Lew, Cn AN t: ELLOA remarked, that one of the difficulties
which had occurred in him in regard to that decree was, whether
the directionsit gave as to the mode in which the Receiver should
render an account of the moneys that came into his hands were not
wholly different from those given in the orders made by this Court ?
Ile a ould, however, look at the Illaatet's Report, at,d mention the
case again on a future day.
CHAWSPIAT V. COLLINS.
Counsel were heard upon the minutes of the decree to the rising
of the Court ; and his .Lordship dieccted the arguments to be re.
sumed rot Alonday.
The Court rose at half past one, the leeraChaneellor •having to
attend the Cabinet Council which had been summoned for today.