The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-03 00:00:00

DIABBERLY v. nowsox,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defend.
ant, for having erected a wall against his premises, so as to block
out the light from his manufactory.
r. SCABLETT stated the facts to the Jury. The plaintiff is a
coach-maker, residing in Welbeck-street, where he occupied large
premises, in which he carried on the business. The defendant oc-
cupied the adjoining premises, and thought proper to erect a wall
by which he utterly excluded the light from certain windows in the
plaintiff's manufactory, some of which had been made so far back
as the year 1799, and others in the year 18112.—The plaintiff gave
repeated notice to the defendant not to persist in his work ; but in
vain, the other only asking him what compensation he required ?
The plaintiff, however, would accept of no compensation, as the
light of which he had been deprived was of far more importance to
him than any pecuniary consideration he could receive.
Witnesses were then called who proved the obstruction of light
towards the plaintiff's premiers, by the erection of the wall in
question, and also of the delivery of a notice to the defendant, ap-
prizing him of the injury lie was doing, and warning him of the
consequence.
Mr. Al ARRY•TT. for the defendant, submitted that it was clear
the object of the plaintiff, in this Instance, was to force his client
to take down altogether the building which he had erected upon his
own premises. The ground upon which he rested his hope of at-
taining this end was, that the windows of which he had complained
hod been blocked up, had been opened twenty years without inter.
ruption--a circumstance which in law would entitle him to the
continuance of that privilege. He (Mr. Marryau) denied that with
respect to the premises in question any such permanent right ex-
isted ; for such a permanent right could only attach to a permanent
building. The building in this instance was not a permanent
building, but had merely been erected in a temporary manner,
upon storey posts and stone plinths, for the express purpose of ena-
bling the plaintiff to remove it at the expiration of his lease. The
law allowed such removal where the buildings erected were for the
purpose of trade or manufacture ; and the plaintiff had distinctly
declared that such was his intention. In addition to this tact, be
should be enabled to prove that these windows, when first opened,
had been objected to by the tenant occupying the premises prior
to the defendant, and that they were only allowed to remain by
permission. He added, that the defendant felt every wish to meet
Mr. Mabberly's views, and had offered to submit the matter to re.
freesia, but that gentleman had positively refused to listen to any
terms.

Mr. SCARLET? thought he might save time by putting in the
lease granted to Mr. Mabberly, in which the buildings alluded to
were specifically included.
After some conversation between the Counsel in the cause, the
parties agreed to enter a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the
award of an arbitrator, and we understood the cue was to be re-
ferred to Mr. Uaselee.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.
RODWELL V. REDGF.

Mr. CHITTY stated that this was an action brought by the
plaintiffs, Mesas. Rodwell and Jones, against the defendant, Paul
Hedge, for a breach of contract.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of
the Adelphi Theatre, who had, in their anxiety to secure popular
entertainments for the public, made an engagement in the course
of last year with the deferdant, Mr. Paul Hedge, who was an emi-
nent comic performer, particularly in the amusing part of Clown,
and better known by tile came of Signor Paulo. (A laugh.) This
gentleman's engagement was for the two ersuing seasons after
June, 1823, and he had performed for a short time at the Adelphi
Theatre; but he removed himself in the month of August afar
without notice, and, as was understood, had accepted as engage.
meat at one of the winter theatres, in contravention of that which
he had previously contracted with the proprietors of the Adelpbi
Theatre. It became incumbent upon the managers to correct
such conduct on the part of those who were bound to them by en.
gagements of this nature; for everybody knew how imperative
it was upon the proprietors, for the sake of the preservation of their
property, to secure the presence of their performers. The asting of
individuals of this gentleman's comic ability was a principal point
of attraction, and instances often occurred in which their absence led
to great uproar and confusion in a theatre. The public had a variety
of ways of expressing disapprobation when they found themselves
unexpectedly deprived of the entertainment which a popular actor
was in the habit of affording. They sometimes manifested this
disapprobation by tearing up a bench, by destroying a scene, or
otherwise damaging the property of the coccern. It was, then, in.
cumbent upon managers, to shew that the absence of a favourite
performer was his art, not theirs and also to shew the individual
that he incurred no light penalty by a breach of his contract. The
proprietors of the Adelphi Theatre were, on the present occasion,
more 'axiom, to uphold their authority h discipline than to crush
the otTendirg individual by the weight of damages: the latter they
left to the Juty to apportion, with whatever moderation the Jury
thought the defendant's situation would warrant.

36. Charles liodwell, the brother of one of the plaintiffs, proved
the proprietorship in the Adelebi Theatre; knew .Mr. Paul Hedge,
who was conintooly called Signor Paulo, and who perfumed the
clown, and several other parts, very usefully for the 'I heater.
The comract was then read, dated June, ISA for the Signor's
performaLce during the two successive seasons, at the Adelphi
Theatre, at 31. per week, play-house pay, and to have liberty to
send in 211. of benefit tickets once during next season. The de.
fendant, Mr. Charles Rodwell said, was a favourite of the public's, ,1
and particularly of his own is laugh); but he withdrew front the
Theatre during the season. lie said lie could Dot fulil his engage-
ment a month after he signed the article.
Mr. Lee, the stage manager, knew Signor Paulo, and also that
he had not fulfilled hi. engagement. A notice from the manager
to the defender; was put in and rend, and proof given that he an-
swered the messenger by stating, there was no use In sending to
him, as he would hot come. Some further intenogattwies were put
to Mr. Lee respecting "the particular walk" which the de-
fendart was thseght ta excel. •• Indeed," said Mr. bee, "he was
always lot ked upon as a favourite clown in nor Christmas panto-
mines and he was to be otherwise available.

Q. In what tuber yurts did he a) pear?—
A. lie was very much liked in the put of Billy Waterw(a
laugh.) He was a most capital Billy.
Mr. MARETATT submitted, that the defendant had made his'
contract with one of the prorrietors, and not with the firm generally,
in the games of winch this action wu brought.
Air. ~cwut.ETT insisted that the action, in its mom form,
was legally tenable.
After ionic conversation between the Learned Counsel, Mr
Sc , for the plaintiffs, consented to receives verdict Ft lb.
damages, and Ida. cults.