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

IN RE RADCLYFFE.

The bankrupt was a window-glass manufacturer,
of Gray's-inn-road. His debts are 1,1171. ; assets,
about 2401. He was awarded a certificate of the
second class. There was no opposition.

IN RE SIMMONDS.

The bankrupt was a grocer at Brighton. His
debts are 1,000/., assets 300/. He came up for his
certificate supported by Mr. Linklater ; Mr. Lowton,
for the assignees, did not oppose. The Court granted
a certificate of the second class, after three months'
suspension, on the ground of bad bookkeeping.

IN RE EDMUND CURTEIS.

The bankrupt was a cheesemonger of Blackfriars-
road. His accounts, prepared by Messrs. Glover and
Son, show—debts, 1,069/. ; 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 examinatioa
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 230/., 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 100/. 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. On 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 100/. 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 300/., 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 100/., which statement puzzled him, he called
on Mr. Anderson, and told him he could not give a
receipt for money which be had not received. Mr.
Anderson said it was of no importance whatever, his
only object, he said, in asking for the receipt was
that he might show it to any one who might assert
to
that he had got it for nothing. He then agreed
take 101. per night till the sum amounted to 3ooiot/e.
On which Mr. Anderson told him that he wats
in error supposing that he wanted it to stop a
for he meant the 10/. per night to remainhaasve to pay
the play ran, and he hoped that he might.
not ask for
did
500/. The play was acted, and
sed circum-
as the theatre was in distres long as
payment, At nearly
a °near. -
stances, and he did not want the
c asked him
the close of the season, Mr.
what he was indebted to him ?
per nig • ht for twenty-three nights,
expressed some surprise, and
which Mr. Anderson exp Anderson And he
itnogl d h2i3mol.l,oatt
was to stop at 150/.
said, he understood the
surprised,
pltecepobsaittwi positively
Anderson seemed to consi-
show equally
th e
jostom o
Mr.
..phhaeiys toldeiai r Mr. Anderson
writing,
Athe
theßeoeui nlparting, however,
no conversation__
( r. Sul livant was
everrig:
gook
k
thatddeereltahraetdhe
him and Mr. Anderson that he was 'to allow 1001. for
putting the comedy on the stage, either in writing or
in word.
Mr. LEWIS (Lewis and Lewis), On the part of Mr.
Anderson, cross-examined Mr. Sul Livant, and he said
that he had arrested Mr. Anderson,. as be felt his con-
duct as a gentleman was impunged in the amount of
the debt.
Mr. LEWIS said a very different reason was given
in the affidavit to hold to bail—tha t he was about to
go to America.
Mr. Sulivant said he had told hil n he was going to
America.
Mr. LEWIS remarked that he was' to have had the
theatre for another year.
Mr. Anderson further stated that had Mr. Sulivante
applied for payment as the comedy
c 'was p deducted
erform
edhe
should have considered that he m ht have
the 100/. to be allowed him for ti le first ten nights
h&
performances.
Mr. LEWIS submitted that both parties were cor-
rect in their statements, he was si Ira each meant
tell the truth. He would ask th( s Court whether to
it
was not reasonable between an author and a manager
that there should be an equal xis: It—what was more