The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-09 00:00:00

LONDON CALSLS 'lO BF. TRIED BY CONVOY JOWLS

Barrow and another
•lont on son
Dean and another 6
Lane
Flinn and others r
• Waller and an-
other

THIS DAT.
Tares • Atkinson
and another
Warrand • Jones
Andrews • White
Kent • Pidgeon
Castworth v Shouits
and another

Lardner • Godfree
and Prist.
Simpson • Lord
Collins, Herd • Han-
cock
Corwen • Ballard

CAUSEI

Lloyd • Lloyd,p-et7
Fontaine v Tyler.do.
In re Ililcon

Ire, do. .
IVileon v Deerant„do
Price • Spencer,
d,.cree, Kiei
llossingt.stii v Boar,
Smith v Russell, to
be spoken to

JUT OF EXCHEQU
:1 TO BE HEARD Tom
Watkins v Smith
Ripley v Stockley
Rowley v Carte
Manx v Isibton
Tarpley v Linnell
Ward v Rodin
Reid •• Robertson
Bishop of Carlisle v
Blair
Wollaston o Marsh

Dodder v Chstbuttat
Day v Meade, Spa..
w hear judgment,
not rettupsble
Bolden v Jackmon

Cowell v YaHowley,
Bell, and another.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.
Before Lord Chief Justice IlrsT and Mr. Justice LiTmtnat.g.
Northamptonshire—Saturday, Feb. 25, at Northampton.
Rutlandshire—Friday, Match,, at Oakham.
Linenlnahire—Saturday, March 4, at Lincoln.
City of Lincoln—Same day, at the City of ditto.
Nottinghamshire—Friday, March 10, at Nottingham.
Town of Nottingham—Same day, at the Town of ditto.
Derbyshire—Wednesday, March Ili, at Derby.
Leicestershire—Monday, March 20, at Leicester.
Borough of Leicester Same day, at the Borough of ditto.
City of Coventry—Saturday, March 25., at the City of Coventry.
IVarwickshire—Same day, at Warwick.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.
Before Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT and Mr. Justice HOLUM-D.
Buckinghamshire—Wednesday, March I. at Aylesbury.
Bedfordshire—Tuesday, March 7, at Bedford.
Huntingdonshire—Saturday, March 11, at Huntingdon.
Cambridgeshire—Tuesday, March 14, at Cambridge.
Norfolk—Katunlay, March 18, at Thetford.
Suffolk—Saturday, March 25, at Bury St. Edmund's.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, WZDNESDAY, Fza. 8.

SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS.
The VICE.CHANCELLOS, on Mr. BARBER'S rising to move a
special injunction, said he would first give judgment on the motion
made by Mr. SPENCE yesterday. He was sorry to find that the
principle on which this Court assumed the power of acting on the
representation of one party had been overlooked in modern prac-
tice. Nothing could have justified any Court in such interference.
but where a case of absolute necessity was supposed to exist, as in
the case of cutting timber. If timber be once cut down it can no
more be restored to its original situation ; and in this case the
principle was first applied as being a case of irreparable mischief,
for which no pecuniary compensation could be made. It was per.
haps unfortunate for the public that this principle had been ap.
plied by a supposed analogy to commercial transactions. His
Honour said a supposed analogy ; for what analogy could there be
between a case of timber and a pecuniary transaction, which, of
course, admitted of pecuniary compensation ? The principle had,
therefore, no application ; but the practice has now been too long
established to be interrupted without the interference of the legis-
lature. Whether this interference will be had or not he did not
know ; but he was sure that it ought to be had. Ile was struck
with the circumstances of the case yesterday, and not being able to
distinguish how much was in the bill, and how much in the afti-
davit, he was desirous of examining it, and the Court would now
hear with as much surprise as he had, that a special injunction had
been moved on such a statement as was now about to be made.
His Honour here read the allidavit of the plaintiff, Richard Miles,
who stated that. in the month of October last, Thomas Folkestone
having imported a cargo of deals, had admitted the deponent as o
partner, whereupon the deponent gave him acceptances, which he
negotiated, to the amount of 6161. Ids. 3d. These acceptances
will become due on the 3d of March, and were given to him upon
an agreement that the proceeds of the cargo should be applied in
discharge thereof fourteen days before the same should become due.
Notwithstanding this agreement, the said Thomas Folkestone re-
tained in his possession the bill of lading, and had sold part of the
said cargo, and refuses to suffer the remainder to be disposed of
for the discharge of the acceptances ; so that in this case the de-
-1 fondant had not yet broken the agreement in one letter ; and this
has been thought a fit case to apply to a Court of Equity to re-
strain him from that act which he 111 authorised to do by the agree-
ment—to remain in the disposition of the cargo ; and all this is to
be done on an affidavit that the deponent has been informed that
the said Folkestone has become insolvent, and refuses to pay his
debts. Of this the necessary consequence would be, that this Court
is to be called upon to interfere, not when an agreement has been
broken, but when it is apprehended it will be broken. Such a
monstrous principle could not be admitted by any Court of Justice,
and his Honour hoped it would cease in future to be acted upon.
Mr. BARBER then made another motion of the same nature,
which was also refused.

OPERA-HOUSE.
WATERS V. TAYLOR.

This was a case of exceptions to a Report of the 31aster. in re.
gird to a debt of NU claimed by a Mr. Beffin on the Opera-
House.

Mr. HORNE appeared to support the'Report ; Mr. HEALD for
the representatives of Taylor ; and Mr. SUGDEN for Waters.
Mr. HEALD said the case was so complicated that though Tay.
lor's exceptions stood first he could not undertake to open the case.
The only way was to read the Report.
Mr. ROUPELL accordingly proceeded to reed the Report, but
was interrupted by
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, who observed that it would be im.
possible for the Court to get at the facts of the case in that way. It
Counsel could not explain the facts from the Report, how could the
Court do so ?

After some discussion, Mr. IlEst.D still declining to undertake
the opening of the case,
Mr. SUGDEN, though not prepared for that purpose, offered to
do so, but begged the indulgence of the Court under these circum-
stances. The following are as nearly as possible the particulars
of the case:—

Although none of the Counsel could positively assert that it was
so, Trelawney appears to have possessed a lease of part of the
ground on which the Opera House stands before the period at
which he procured a lease of the remaining portion. This last
lease was to commence at Michaelmas 1782, and to expire in 1803.
The ground therefore appears to be divided into two portions, ori-
ginally held by different leases, which are now both supposed to be
expired. It was impossible, however, to come at the real state of
the facts in the case, as none of the Counsel had informed them-
selves on the subject. It was not even ascertained whether the
property possessed by Sheridan and Harris was the whole or only
five-sixths, as some parts of the report seemed to imply. An as-
signment in 1778 was made of this property to Sheridan and Har-
ris fur the sum of 10,0001. and the legal estate was then vested in
two persons of the name of Hoare, in trust tOr Harris and Sheri-
dan. and for discharging mortgages on the estate to the amount of
12.0001. These mortgages were originally due to different persons,
but had all been purchased by a person called (lallini, who was
consequently at this time the sole incumbrancer on the estate. In
17111 Taylor was substituted instead of Harris as joint proprietor
with Sheridan, the former holding one-fourth, and the latter three.
fourths, of the estate. Oallini now became pressing for the pay-
ment of his mortgage, anti a scheme was set on foot for discharging
the incumbrance by subscriptions, by which a sum or 9,0001. was
discharged, the remainder still remaining unpaid. Among others
Mr. Keane Fitzgerald became a subscriher for 3001. and his rights
were transmitted successively to a Mr. Baker, a Mr. Bennett, and
the present claimant. It is a remarkable tact that Gallinianerwards
bought back 2 or 3,000!. of these subscriptions, which had been
made for the discharge of his own mortgage. It is not quite cer-
tain what bonus was given to the subscribers of these shares ; but
it was probably a silver ticket fur admission into the house, al.
though the opposite Counsel asserted that there was no evidence of
that fact. In 1789 the Opera House, which had only been insured
for 8001., was burnt down, and was rebuilt by 31r. Taylor. In
consideration of the enormous expense which lie had been at in re.
building the house, the Crown granted him a new lease instead of
the old oac, which would have expired in 1803. An application
was made to the different shareholders to assist in the reconstruc-
tion of the building, which was mortgaged to them, and it would
become a question whether those who did not so assist could now
claim on the new building. Taylor then became sole proprietor, the
shares of the other shareholders being purchased. The property was
assigned by him in trust to certain persons for specilicpurposes,andin
thisdeed it was declared that the priority was to begiven toeuch shares
of the original mortgage fur twelve thousand pounds as remained
unsatisfied ; but as the person who then held the claim of Mr.
Heflin refused to contribute to the re.eonstruction of the house,
Mr. Taylor must have considered that claim as one of those which
had been satilicd, Counsel were nut even agreed as to the number