The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-24 00:00:00

. APRIL 24, 1852.
7

and 50-inch) for the same quarters are very scarce, and the
manufacturers well under 'contract. An, advance of, lid per
piece bas been obtained in tome cases in 40-inch shirtings since
last seek. Low numbers of water twist: are well inquired for
at id per -lb higher than last week ; and 20's water, which
were quoted on Saturday at 7d to 74d for ordinary, and at 70
to 740 per lb
,is now. fully 4,c1 higher, 'No 301 to 50's mule
twist: are id to 4d per lb higher than laskweek.

i • • COAL MABEE'
" S'Prices of Coal per ton at t
Raters West Hartley 13s 6d
Buddle'sW. Hartley Ms 6d
Holy well " l3s fid
Hartlepool W. Hartley 138 61
Si itli's Wrest Hartley; 13s 9d
Ited6eugh gain Is Od
t'an(leld Moor
Titri6eld Moor Butes l2s Od
West Wylam

„
1 ZSTERDAY.
;he close of the market :--
Braddyll
letton
.......... 163 3d
tAmbton
Russell's Hetton ......
Scarborough l.4s 6d
Stewart's „ l6i Od
Hetton Lyons Main 15s Od
Plummer
Cass%)
Heugh nau
Kelloe
Seymour Tees ...... 143 Od
Tees
Woodhouse C105e...... 138 9d
BirchgroveGreigola... 203 Od
I.erw-Pntwaterilartley 133 1;
Nixon's Merthyr and
'Cardiff .... 23i oe
12,7-,„.AecCel.

Thie, Ipslhaionusttliadfr,tedarriintvbatethtehheenaffiesadttaLoittantedmondad
het
uiht
nne
in
al t h
I oo s
sr support Iw6
ht ai
coohif
the month of April."
wouldry
sustain by means of Joanna Wagner
tabeheobatype thhee biil,
breaking her engagement with him at upwards of 30,0001.,
and that he had been informed, and believed, that
Mr. Gye had offered to her 2,0001. for two months'
engagement, and had made representatiOns to her at the
same time that -Mr. Lumley's theatre must soon close, and
that she never would receive the sums which had been pro-
mised to her, and that it would be injurious to her reputation
to persevere in it. Under these representations, and feeling,
as it were, under intimidation, she had entered into engage-
ments with Mr. Gye. Mr. Lumley then offered to her 30,1.
in Bank of England notes, which were refused, and Mr.
Lumley was unable to prevail upon Mdlle. Wagner
to fulfil her contract. The affidavits went on to say
that on the 19th of April Mdlle. Wagner arrived in Eng-
land, and that she arab advertised to sing at Covent-garden
Theatre to-morrow evening. Affidavits were also read from
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Rach, setting forth that in conse-
quence of Mdlle. Wagner not singing at Her Majesty's The-
atre, boxes and stalls bad been returned on their hands,
having been taken under the impression that that artiste
would appear there. On these facts the Learned Counsel,
after quoting the several cases of " Kemble v. Kean,"
" Clarke v. Price," " Morris v. Colman," and other cases,
submitted that he had good ground for asking for an injunc-
tion to restrain Mdlle. Wagner from breaking the last clause
in the agreement, and Mr. Gye from taking advantage of her
services.
Mr. CLARKE followed on the same side, insisting that the
excuse of the non-payment of the 3001. was a mere after-
thought, and that the larger offers and misrepresentations of
Mr. Gye were the real cause of the pre-engagement being
broken.
Mr: Mantles, for the defendant, said that in consequence
of. ,the very short notice given he had had
no opportunity of becoming' acquainted with the
plaintiff's affidavit, or of filing affidavits on behalf
of thq defendant. There was a substantive answer, however,
on the part of the defendant, and that was, a breach of
the contract on the part of Mr. Lumley under circumstances
which induced the defendant and her father to belive that
Mr. Lumley would be unable to perform it. With regard
.to the negative ..016,40,.._he .ealtunitted that - that was. not
I proved with sufficient clearness to have been- a part of the
original contract; it was inserted afterwards, and was signed
merely by Dr. Becher. He should suggest that the, case
should be deferred until Monday, when he should be pre-
pared to go into it on its merits. One night's performance
could not do so much harm to Mr. Lumley.
Vice-Chancellor PARKER—Are you prepared to give any
undertakings?
Mr. MALIWS said that he would have no objection to give
an undertaking that Mdlle. Wagner should not sing a se-
cond time until the affair was disposed of.
Mr. BACON said that this would certainly not meet the
views of his client.
Mr. Damn then proceeded to argue that there was no
proof that the negative stipulation had been accepted
or signed by Mdlle. Wagner, and it could not therefore be
considered to be part of the contract. The Court, there-
fore, could do nothing, because, even though it might on
sufficient grounds have prevented Mdlle. Wagner from sing-
ing at Covent-garden, it certainly had no powerned r to make her
sing at Her Majesty's Theatre. The -Lea h
Counsel
quoted a number of cases to show that it had always been the
practice of the Court, when it could not enforcethespecie
performance of a contract, not to interfere at all.
Heb
the
sub-
mitted that there had been a breach of the contract
alsoy
nonpayment of the stipulated sum of 300/. on the part of Mr.
not
Lumley. He therefore thought that the Court
on was
but
called upon to take the course which was urged up it,
that the parties ought to be left to their remedy at law.
Mr. licarrrman followed on the same side.
His Honours suggested that an undertaking should be given
that the young lady should not act to-morrow, leaving as
opportunity at the same time of making affidavits in the
course of the day and entering into the merits of the case.
Mr. MALINS said that he was afraid he should nut be in a
better position, because it would be impossible to make affi-
davits in the course of to-morrow.
His HONOUR then said that the Court must act necessarily
on ex parte information, and the statement of one side only
of the question. It appeared then to him, in the first place, that
the contract containing the prohibitory clause was the real
bond fide contract existing between the parties,. ad that it
had been accepted and agreed upon by both partiesn, and was
the agreement by which the conditions of the engagement
were regulated. If there were a contract between the parties,
there was little doubt on his mind, that if a party agreed to do
a specific thing for a valuable consideration, and to refrain from
doing something else inconsistent with that former thing,
thst the Court could and would interfere to restrain the
party from doing that which had been agreed not to be done,
even if it were unable to compel the performance of that
which had been agreed to be done. With regard
to the other question, the non-payment of throe /.
h 300
at the stipulated time, it appeared to him, fm the
information which he possessed, on which he was
obliged to act, that Mr. Lumley had by the letters already
' read, both of his own and that of Dr. Becher, offered pay-
ment of it before the time agreed upon. He should, there-
fore, grant, an injunction against Mdlle. Joanna Wagner,
' reetrainindher from performing at the Royal Italian Opera,
and also against Mr. Gye, restraining him from taking ad-
vantage of her services, giving leave, however, to the de-
fendants, either to-morrow or any subsequent day, to file
affidavits, and to move for its dissolution.