The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-30 00:00:00

IN RE EDMUND CURTEIS.

The bankrupt was a cheesemonger of Blackfriars-
road His accounts, prepared by Messrs. Glover and
Son, show—debts, 1,0691. ; assets, 3601. This was
the last examination meeting.
Mr. Linklater supported ; Mr. Bagley opposed.
His HONOUR was dissatisfied with the bankrupt's
account of a payment of a sum of 2001. to a person
of the name of Hall, and adjourned his examination
for six weeks in order that Hall might be produced.
Under the circumstances the bankrupt would not at
present receive any allowance.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,Jan. 29.

IN THE MATTER OF J. R. ANDERSON.

This was a meeting for the proof of debts under
the estate of Mr. Anderson, the late lessee of Drury-
lane Theatre.

The principal proof tendered was by Mr. Sulivant,
the author of the comedy The Old Love and the New,
for 2301., being at the rate of 101. per night for 23
performances. The claim was objected to on the part
of Mr. Anderson, and the present meeting was held
to hear the evidence of both parties on oath, and for
the decision of the Registrar (Mr. Charles Dance) on
the claim.
Mr. Anderson stated that on the 15th of January,
1850, Mr. Sulivant sent his comedy, The Old Love
and the New, to him, and it was approved of. On
the sth of February in the same year, when he saw
Mr. Sulivant, he asked 300/. for it, requiring 1001. in
ready money and 101. per night. Having considered
the terms, be wrote a letter to Mr. Sulivant (which
was put in evidence), to the effect that he would lay
out 100/. and more in putting the comedy on the
stage, and asking for a receipt for 1001., which Mr.
Sulivant declined to give. The play was put in re-
hearsal. Oa the 27th of February, in consequence of
the conduct of Mrs. Nisbett, he (Mr. Anderson) found
it necessary to discharge her, and the play was taken
out of the bills. It was subsequently played in the
season of 1851, and ran 24 nights. He thought it
was longer, and Mr. Sulivant charged for 23 nights.
Had he not believed that Mr. Sulivant would have
allowed him 100/, he would not have brought out the
comedy. Mr. Sulivant did not in any interview state
that he would not allow 1001. for putting the play on
the stage. It was nearly at the end of the season that
Mr. Sulivant applied for payment, he believed with
great courtesy. Mr. Anderson distinctly stated that
the agreement with Mr. Sulivant—and he regretted
that it had not been put in white and black—was that
he was to be allowed 100/. out of 3001, the price of
the comedy, towards the expense of putting it on the
stage.

Mr. Sulivant, on oath, said he read the comedy,
and Mr. Anderson approved of it. He told him the
price was 3001, to be paid on the receipt of the co-
medy. On the receipt of the letter asking for a re-
ceipt for 1001., which statement puzzled him, he called
on Mr. Anderson, and told him he could not give a
receipt for money which he had not received. Mr.
Anderson said it Wh3 of no importance whatever, his
only object, he said, in asking fur the receipt was
that he might show it to any one who might assert
that he had got it for nothing. He then agreed to
take 10/. per night till the sum amounted to 3001.
On which Mr. Anderson told him that he was quite
in error supposing that he wanted it to stop at 3001.,
for he meant the 101. per night to remain as long as
the play ran, and he hoped that he might have to pay
500/. The play was acted, and he did not ask for
payment, as the theatre was in distressed circum-
stances, and be did not want the money. At nearly..m
the close of the season, Mr. Anderson asked ni
101.
what he was indebted to him ? And be told h 2
per night
surprise? a
for twenty-three nights, being .
which Mr. Anderson expressed some at 1501.
said, he understood the play
was
stopM3r.Aderson he
Being equally surprised, he toldl
positively
could show the justice of his claim by
pHlaece between
the parting, however, Mr. d bs
eye
me d writing.tol3consi-
der
eltahraedt he
he was to allow 1001. for
him and Mr. Anderson that
..
on the.lnstage,uo
edeither in writing or
h a(
tMnro. S.
conversation
Ao iaesv right.er too k
(Lewis and Lewis), on the part of Mr.
Mr. LEWIS
in the amount of
ia puttingw ord . the comedy
cross-examined Mr. Sullivant, and he ' , said
had arrested Mr. Anderson, as be felt his con-
duct as a gentleman was i p g
the debt.
Mr. LEWIS said a very different reason was given
ehr
he
o n,
in the affidavit to
Anderson,
hold to hail—that he was about to '
go to America.
Mr. Sulivant said he had told him he •
was going to
America.

➢Zr. LEWIS remarked that he was to have had the
theatre for another year.
Mr. Anderson further stated that had Mr. Sulivant
applied for payment as the comedy was performed, he
should have considered that he might have deducted
the 1001. to be allowed hina for the first ten nights'
performances. . _

- Mr. LEWIS submitted that both parties were cor-
rect in their statements, he was sure each meant to
tell the truth. lie would ask the Court whether it
was not reasonable between an author and a
manager
that there should be An equal risk—what was more

reasonable than that an author should pay 1001, to-
wards putting an expensive comedy on the stage ?
The Registrar was sure that both gentlemen
meant to speak the truth. It was certainly to be re-
gretted that the agreement had not been reduced to
writing. The words of the letter were very loose,
and in putting his construction upon it be was of
opinion that Mr. Sulivant was to be paid 3001. for the
comedy. That gentleman had sworn that no such
allowance was to be made as 1001, and Mr. Ander-
son had also sworn that there was such an agreement.
It did seem to him somewhat unreasonable to sup-
pose that an author would put himself into a position
after producing a work of study as the comedy
.was,
to have the "bloom" as it were taken off by the first
ten nights' performances, and then to be told that he
was to allow 1001. for putting the comedy on the
stage. He wished it to be observed, that he imputed
nothing to either party—both, he was confident, had
spoken the truth according to their belief; but under
all the circumstances, he way of opinion that Mr.
Sulivant was entitled to prove for 230/, the amount
claimed.—The claim was accordingly admitted.

(Before Mr. CommissionerPumurs.)
IN THE MATTER OF HENRY COVEN. _

This insolvent, an iron merchant o❑ Saffron-hill,
appeared for judgment. His case was before reported.
Mr. CooKE, for the insolvent, mentioned that the
insolvt,nt's friends were willing to pay 2001. into
court to satisfy the opposition.
Mr. DOWSE, for the creditors, refused the offer. A
very large quantity of goods had been obtained from
creditors.

Mr. CooKE stated some circumstances respecting
the insolvent's family.
Mr. Commissioner .PHILLIrs felt for other persons,
but he had a public duty to perform. Persons should
consider their own families before they acted in the
manner this insolvent had done.

The case stood over, and no further offer was made.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLirs pronounced a judg-
ment of 16 calendar month?, from the vesting order
in November, for a fraudulent making away with
property.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
BO W-STREET.

Thomas Connor and William Watts, two young
men well known to the police, were brought before
Mr. Hall, charged with stealing a pocket-book con-
taining a 101. note, 18 sovereigns, and an 1 0 U for
38/., belonging to Mr. James Ritchie, of Craven
Cottage, Kew-foot-lane, Richmond, from his person.

It appeared that on Tuesday morning, at three
o'clock, the prosecutor and a friend named Jones
entered the White Hart public-house in the Strand,
where they remained enjoying themselves in front
of the bar for several houre, and having frequently
had occasion to pay for refreshment, he had re-
course to a large pocket-book, in which he kept
his money, to pay the reckoning, in the presence
of the prisoners. After this he went to a coffee-
shop, where he and the prisoners partook of eggs
and ham. A cab being called, the prisoner Connor
pushed him in, and the other having got on the box,
the driver was directed to take him to St. Paul's-
churchyard, where his companion got out, and went
away, followed by the other prisoner, and having felt
for his pocket-book he had not sufficient to pay the
fare, his pocket-book with the contents being stolen;
in consequence of which the driver drove him to the
next police station and gave information.
Mr. HALL said many cases of robbery committed
under such circumstances were brought before him to
adjudicate upon, owing principally to the misconduct
of persons in possession of money who indulged in
the use of intoxicating liquors and mixed with low
characters at unreasonable hours, expecting, when
they came to their sense', that the law would afford
them every assistance in the recovery of their pro-
perty, which they lost through their own impropriety
of conduct. _ _ _

The constable said he could show at a future day
that the prisoners had been making purchases since
the robbery was committed, and they were ordered to
be committed.