The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-20 00:00:00

rligAtkkg.

adlte-is
ropoked Hogshead was last night repeated
to au elegant and crowded audience. Mr. Emm-
en)... as
.Lord Town 4, performed with his usual
excellefiee; as did Air. CooPttn.iti the 'gentlemanly
character of (dimly. Ma: D.tirfltOlt, as Lady
Tesealy, appeared to greater advantage than her
!miner reormentation of this volatile woman Mr..
W. Wait, as Lady Grace, by her admirable act-
ing. drew forth the wannest testisisonies of appro.
batten. This comedy bids fair to became • con-
siderable favourite during the present amnion, and
it is scarcely possible it should he otherwise, when
tbe characters are all so well sustained.

COVENT-GAIMEN.
Nile% M. TREE appeared far the first time since
het indisposition in oh.. Iran of the Second Viole►te,
in the opera of Don dohs, last evening. She seem-
ed-on excellent healih and spirits, and her sweet
mellow voice was heard with delight in all her
song•. which were warmly applauded. 6' Tell me.
hare you seen a toy?" which was accompanied with
rune castanet movements. in which she di►played
snitable gracefulness and elegance of attitude. was
loudly encored. Another distinguished meinher of
the Send corps, Miss HA LEAN DX, being indisposed,
her place was supplied by Miss LOVE, who, as the
Nest Violelta, both sang and acted in a very pleas.
Dig style. We have never seen Mr. C. KENDLE
petforth Dew Joh* with mare aninution and hu-
mour. Has gallantry is of the most spirited, but
gentlemanly kind, and we have before us a brave
and sprightly nobleman, whose youthful follies sit
o becomingly npon him, that even were we inclined
to moralize, we could not frown. M►s. DAvstr-
PORT'S Landlady should not be forgotten: it is in
the richest vein of humour. To sum up the at-
tractions of this piece, the music is pretty, and the
scenery is emit4ed to particular notice for its ex-
tremely beautiful ',teem iiiii —a circumstance which,
however it navy excite pleasure, creates no surprise
at this house.

TRY OLYMPIC.

The more we visit this pleasing little theatre,
the more we admire its elegance and splendour.
he excellent entertainments that have been per-
formed such an unusual number of nights success
steely, are still receiving the moat marked and de-
served applause. By the bills, we observe that the
present week is the lost of the celebrated said
inimitable performance of Mrs. EGLIITON, as the
inspired said noble-minded Joan of Arc, which
character her extraordinary and just conception has
made entirely her own : to sustain so arduous a
part, and so continually, not only requires superior
talent. but a superior constitution. %One and Jerry.
so admirably acted, continues to receive merited
approbation. The scene of A/Israeli's displays the
taste and liberality of the Proprietor; the dresses
■re superb; we scarcely ever witnessed a scene ma-
naged with so much excellence and judgment.
The Tread Mill increases in popularity and effect
every representation. A very judicious improve-
ment has been made for the convenience and com-
fort of the box visitors or half-price. The saloon,
which was always admired for its beauty. has been
completely re•embellished by Mr. Gaastrwoon, in
an elegant and masterly style. We tryst this ex-
cellent arrangement will receive the reward it
deserves.

The new tragedy announced in the hills of Co-
vent-garden theatre is, we believe, ju.t!y ascribed
to Mr. SHELL, author of Evadme, 'I he Apostate.
&c. The scene is said to be laid in France, during
the persecution of the Hugotiatits, and the interest
of the play to turn chiefly on an historical instance
of the most devoted filial .ilfection. We understand
Miss F. H. KELLY will personate the heroine of
the tragedy. We may also take this opportunity
of stating, that two or three years back, when Miss
KELLY was performing for a short time at the
Brighton theatre, Mr. Stmt. accidentally saw her,
and was so struck by the great talent which she then
displayed, that on his suggestion Mr. 11 &REIS im-
mediately engaged her fur the Dublin stage. Mr.
SHELL, we have heard, likewise prevailed on his
friend, Mr. NIACREADY. to gee Miss KELLY some
unite uctiona before she proceeded to Irehod, and is
said to have dune every thing to his power to de-
velop her genius during her engagement in the
sister country. This young lady, we are informed,
has hail the advantage of e finished education ; and
TaLssA is Said to have pronounced her voice to be
the must cumprehettinve he hail eser heard.
Messrs. ABBOTT and FARLEY have recently
taken the Cheltenham and Gloucester Theatres fur
three years. _ .

Whilst Mr. KEAN WAS recently ',haying Richard
the Third, or Carl I I .16. e, he was unforimistely cut
riesr the eye will' his own foil, when fencing with
I?irlimond, and the mark still rermiiiis.

Monday morning a dreadful accident took place
at the new church, Stoke Newington. Soon after
the workmen returned from breakfast, shout nine
o'clock, they commenced hoisting a large stone,
nearly a ton weight, by a pulley, fabtened oil the
top of the scaffolding. When the atone was nearly
at the top, some part of the tackle by which it was
supported gave way. and falling with great violence
on the ►caffolding, broke it down. Five men who
were 011 it were precipitated to the ground with
great violence; they were immediately taken up,
mod Iwo carte being obtained, they were conveyed
to Bartholomew's Ho►pital.
About six o'clock on Sunday evening a poor
man, who many year■ got his bread by aweeping
the cro►s-way facing the ,Olniker Red Cap, Camden
Town, was run over by a poet-chaise, mid killed ou
the spot.
A warehouse in Angel.aireet. Worcester, occu-
pied by Mr. JUGGINS, wire-worker and null-factor,
of Brousl-sirret, hr that city. was forcibly entered
in the course of Thursday night by some villains,
who in the most wanton manner committed spolia-
tion upon nearly every thing which it contained.
Several bundles of brass and iron woe were cut to
piece. and rendered useless; the nail-bags were
emptied of their contents. which were strewed and
mixed upon the floor; a large quantity of made-up
sieves mid sieve bottom's were detinies', and nume-
►oue other malicious acts were perpetrated by these
mischief-working miscreants. Not a single article
of property is missing, and it would seem therefore
that revenge and out pluuder was sought by the de-
but/units.

LAW )11ThiLiGhiVe.k.

COURT OF CHANCERY, iVotatati
Sum V. WARD.

The Loan Chances.Lua sat at nine o'clock ibis
morning for the purpose of hearing farther argil.
as...iits in this matter. Many of the common law
Counsel of the King's Beside and Common Memo,
together with the majority of the Members of this
B.r, have been retained by either party. This
case his at different 'relied, beets brought be-
fore the public lei various shapes, and in consider-
aide detail, so that it will not lie necessary tit pre-
sent to do more than refresh the trader'. memory
by giving the following abstract ;—A hilt was
filed in 1840, by the Plointifrs (the co-heiresses),
praying that his Lordship *mold direct au iollue to
try who was the lawful heir of Evelyn Rowland
Cotton, from whom Defendant held sereseemion of
the faintly estates in Derby and Shropshire, tinder
testamentary deed, bequeathing to him all his
own property as well no that of his brother, William
Cotton, on the hypothesis that the latter was Meg'.
lunette. This consequently raised the questioned' the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of the said William
Cootoo, who died intestate and insane. His Lord-
ship directed the issue, and the case accordingly
went down for trial to she Court of Common Pleas,
where the Plaintiff's contended for the legitimacy of
the lunatic, under whom they claimed; the Defend.
ant, Ward, maintainingthe negative.. The Jury, after
an investigation which occu pied several days, re' rimed
a verdict for the Defendant, finding that William
Cotton was born out of wedlock, in consequence,
however, of some documentary evidence alleged to
have been withheld ot this inquiry, the precut bill
was filed, praying that a new trial might be had.
IVhether this should or should not be acceded to
was the question now before the Court. Mr. Ser-
jeant.Copley, some time iu the last Term, in support
of the Bill, contended for the affirmative; rod
Mr. SCARLSTT this moruing, on the part of the
Defendant, the Rev. Richard Rowland Ward, pro.
ceeded to argue against the new trial. Oue of the
krounds on which his Learned Friend had rested
his case was, that the Defendant had for upwards
of thirty years, during which he was nit the corn.
wilier., treated the lunatic as legitimate, and that
evidence to this effect wag un the records of the
Court ; but that upon lunatic's death, Ward con-
troveited his former testimony, and to make good
his own title, asserted he was born out of wedlock.
Admitting the troth of this statement, he said the
Plaintiff's were the last persons who ought to have
so charged him, because they were, iii fact, the
very party who had instigated him to pursue this
line of conduct.

The Loati CHANCELLOR was not aware that
Ward had given his consent to the legitimacy in
1795. If he had been put in possession of this cir-
cumstance earlier he should certainly have never
directed the ispue to be tried. but would have di-
rected the co-heiresses to have been put in posses-
sion. and kit Mr. Ward to his ejectment. He
would have said that es Ward had for thirty years
acknowledged the Plaintiffs to be !veils at law, he
would not now have permitted him to hive con-
truvr►ted his former testimony, but made him take
the consequrocea of it. by directing such persons
to he considered as the heirs at law. If (bring in-
formed of the circumstance) he had acted other-
wise, he should consider that he was !coding him-
self to a gross misrepresentation._

Mr. SCAILETT s*id that the Plaintiffs were aware
of this fact lung before the bill was tiled; it was a
conversation between them, that previous to the
lunatic's death this question should not be agitated,
and therefore the other side were tis much to be
blamed as his client. Another of the gravumena
of this case was, that Mr. Carr (the Secretary for
Lunacy), who was an attorney in this case, had
withheld pat.e►s necessary to substantiate the Plain•
tiff's position. But that Gentleman had only
refused to deliver up, in his character as attorney,
those documents which he held as his Lordship's
Secretary.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—a The Secretary
ought to hold, iii these matters, as even a hand as
the Lord Chancellor himself ; and when engaged in
such matters as the present, he should, when given
notice to produce documents, apply to the persons
from whom he received them. Were there any
savings out of the lunatic'. estate ?"
Mr. SCARLETT said there were 100,000/.
The LORD CHANZELLOR--" What does the
Crown say to that ?"
Mr. SCARLETT—There was now a suit on the
subject iii the Common Pleas. The Learned
Gentleman went on to contend, that with whatever
force they might be able to limy open the iniiiconduct
of his client, still the Court would not let it weigh
in favour of the Plaintiff., who were participmiwrr.

The LORD CDANCELLOR—" When was Ward
committed 1"

Mr. Semit.r.TT—" In 1796."

. _
The LORD CHANCEI.I.Oa—" Then it appeared,
front the orders before the Court, that he had,
while in that capacity, ordered the puyinent of se-
veral 14117111 of money out of the estate, to persons
whom he considered at the time is illegitimate.
A committee of the estate, he thought, ought to
have investigated the matter at once."
Mr.ScAuLETT then argued at considerable lenAth
on the evidence produced before the Jury in sup.
port of the !ilea of illegitimacy, Hid cited a deed
which proved that the marriage took place in the
year 1742, the eldest soli, the lunatic, being burn
the previous year.

Mr. ‘‘'ETHERELL was proceeding cot the same
side, when his Lordship rose.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT,
TussoAy, NOVEMBER 19.

STEWART V. STUART, STREET, AND DIUDNORD.

Mr. 1301.1. slated, that in this case it hill was filed
by W. Stewart, E.q. against Messrs. Stuart and
Street, the principal proprietors of he Courier
Newspaper, and against Mr. Mudford, ill alleged
proprietor roil editor. The bill prayed that the
Defernlinits might he compelled to pay to the Plain..
tiff one half-year's profits upon two twenty-fourth
share', and also to pay to the Plaintiff 149/. 13s.
which he had by mistake overpaid for those sharer.
Thirdly, it was prayed, that the Defendants might
he restrained from pelting any shares of the paper
without the Plaintiff's conrrut ; and also that they
might be compelled to render him so &account of the
prof &s and disbursements of the concern. The

Mk

r 4 ties sibn turned, as it alqiieVe.: from the volominotis
pleadings opened on the pert of the Plaintiff, es to
the rights of the latter, epos the cons•ritction of the.
deedi of assignment of two shares. From Mr. Hell's
►tatement it appeared that from the year 1799.
The Courier we. carried on kindly by the Defend-
ants, Daniel Stuart and George Street. lii 1808.
Mr. Stuart became riviiirons of disposing of some of
his shines, and Mr. Faultier,. coal-merchant,,wasiurr
trodutro; but its consequence of some objections
made it, him by Mr. tiirtsrt, as a person from the oa-
t iire of his pursuits iticomsretesit to take a share it the
loco of such a publication, Mr.Faalder withdrew.
Ailicles of agreement were drawn up at that time
between the two Defendants, Stuart and Street, for
the futut•e Conduct or the paper. and in these
articles it was agreed that as they were equal pro.
pnetors. the paper should be divided into twenty!
four shares; that Mr. Stuart should be the WM.,
proprietor of the first twelve shares, mod that Mr.
Street should be the senior proprietor:of the second
twelve ►lsorrr, reserving to each other special pen&
loges. in case of ;he isle of any of thei► sharer. It
was, then agreed that in the event of either or al
proprietor being desirous of selling out, the other}
should hate the right of purchasing it, upon a scale
of prices according to the number of sheets sold
for the three calendar mouths previous. If the
sheets sold should amount to 600 per diem. the
copyright should be taken to be worth 1,0001.;
and for every hundred beyond 600 the copyright
should he t■ken at 6004 As the ule, after hariug
accomplished 2,500. greatly increased in profit, it
was agreed that 4001. should be given fur every
hundred sheets lifter that number; and it was also
agreed, that if the sale amounted to 3.500, t►e
copyright should he taken us worth 7,0001. ; and if
it amounted to 4,000, 12,4001. should be taken as
the value of the copyright. If the proprietor or
proprietors should be unwilling to buy the shares
for disposal at this price, the holder should be ut
liberty to sell to any other person. who. upon purchas-
ing, should be bound to give a bond to abide by the
same regulation. In 1819 Mr. Stewart, the Plaintiff
entered into a negotiation with Mr. D. Stuart, and
ultimately became the purchaser of a share of the
paper from him, and also of one from Mr. Streets
upon giving for the two a sum in proportion to. the
four last yeers' profits of the paper. which, iu the
last year, was stated to produce 6,0001. clear limn/.
It was charged in the bill that in the statement of
profits there had been a mistake made by Mr.
Stuart, iu which the Plaintiff had paid 1291. more
than he ought to have paid. The Plamitiff be-
hewed, upon the deed of assignment. that he was
entitled to • rate in the management of the concern.
but, upon the first day of settlement, at which he
attended to take his share of the proGir, lie was in-
formed by Mr. Stuart, the Defendant, that it was
not intended to sell him more than a share of the
profits, and not any of the rights, as proprietor.
A refusal of the share of the profits now sought was
given to him unless he would consent in give a re-
ceipt acknowledging his right only to the profits.
At that time • third actor, Mr. Medford, made his
appearance, and claimed that he should become •
proprietor at the expiration of • certain period, ac-
cording to ■ promise made to bun to that effect.
Mr. Bell eutered ut great length upon the terms of
the engagement, when his Honour postponed the
hearing of the arguments to another day.

COURT Or KING'S BENCH, Wemitsrria,
Tusioa,T, NOVIII2IIII 19.

BUTT. CLIMB. N. WISEMAN.

This was an action tried before the Chief Baron
at the Cambridge Assizes, and wits brought by the
Plaintiff, at Rector of the purist) of Liken, to
recover from the Defendant tithe for certain binds
held by him in that parish and diocese of Ely,
The verdict was taken for the Plaintiff. It appear-
ed at the triul that the lands in question were for-
merly abbey lands, in po ion of the De.en and
Chapter of Ely, and therefore it was contended
that as snch they were exempted front the payment
of tithes.

The CHIEF BARON, in summing up to the Jury,
said, it waa certainly proved that the lauds in ques-
tion were formerly abbey lands; but in h►s opinion
that alone was not sufficient to discharge thee►
from payment of tithe: at ',rearm to exempt Noy
lands from payment of tithe, it was further necessary
to prove that at the time the lands were held by the
abbey they were considered as tithe free. Upon
this direction the Jury found • verdict for the
Plaintiff.

Mr. EAGLE now moved fur a new trial. on the
grotind that this was a misdirection, and that it wee
aufficient to ►hew that they were abbey lands.
A loisg argument followed, in which Mr. Scar-
lett, Mr. Stoikr, and Mr. Robinson, aere leaders ;
and the case stands over fur further hearing.