The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCg,

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, JAN. 16.
TBOXSON V. ROBINSON.
This was an action to recover damages against
the defendant for his refusal to load a ship, the
Superior, with a cargo at the MaUritiul. The
plaintiff, Mr. James Duncan Thomson, a merchant
of London, was the charterer, under Mr. Gtmston,
of the Superior, on a voyage to the Cape of Good
Hope and the Mauritius, and from thence to London
or Liverpool. By a charter-party made between the
plaintiff and the defendant, it was agreed that the
Superior, after discharging her cargo at the Cape,
should proceed to the Mauritius, and there receive
front the defendant a cargo of sugar, proceeding
from thence to London ; 25 days to be al-
lowed for discharging the cargo at the Cape
of Good Hope. The ship was detained at the
Cape 34 days, and on the ground, therefore, of a
deviation from the terms of the charter-party, the
defendant contended that he was discharged from
the contract.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 1,4286.

ISAAC V. IMPEY, ESQ., AND OTHERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that the plain-
tiff, Mr. Alexander Isaac, a merchant of the city of
London, of great respectability, and of considerable
fortune, had brought this action in respect of a mat-
ter which he felt to be of deep interest to his cha-
racter, as also to the society in which he lived. The
action was brought against three gentlemen of the
profession of the law. Mr. Impey was a gentleman
whom he (the Attorney-General) had known from
early life. He was a man of great intelligence, of
uncommon acuteness, and, no doubt, of competent
learning ; and although he had not practised as a
barrister, his name had been long distinguished at
the head of a list of Commissioners of Bankrupt, and
his name was as well known in the commercial world
as that of any gentleman practising at the bar. Mr.
Ainsley, the second defendant, was a❑ old personal
friend of his own. Mr. Surtees, the other defendant,
he had not the honour of knowing, but he had no
doubt that he also was a gentleman of respectability.
These gentlemen were three of the Commissioners of
the celebrated 14th list, who, in the discharge of
,shat they conceived to be their duty to the putt•
lic, were likely to increase the business of the Court
of King's Bench, by their committals of so large a
number of bankrupts and witnesses who appeared be-
fore them. The plaintiff, Mr. Isaac, was of the Jewish
persuasion : he was, nevertheless, a person of afflu-
ence and of great respectability. He had a brother
who had taken the name of Leon in addition to
that of Isaac, and was resident in Jamaica, where
he conducted some very extensive concerns. The
plaintiff, Mr. Isaac, carried on business as a mer-
chant, and resided in Finsbury-square, where he
was well known. His brother, Mr. Leon, before

,
lie quitted England for Jamaica, left Ivith him a ge-
neral power of attorney to enable him to transact
his concerns in London. He left a considerable
sum of money with the plaintiff, and empowered

him to lay it out in the funds, or invest it in any
other way that he thought proper. Part of his
(Mr. Leon's) property consisted of Russian stock,
and Ole plaintiff was authorized to manage that and
his other property according to his own discretion.
An account was kept at the banking house of Sir
John Lubbock and Co. in the joint names of Isaac
and Lcon ; and the plaintiff was at liberty to ope-
rate upon that account in the absence of his brother
in any manner that he thought proper. A sum of
7,0001., part of Mr. Leon's money, had been lent to
Samuel Owen on mortgage of the ship Exmouth.
Of that ship, and of the Bussorah Merchant, in
which Mr. Leon was also concerned, the plaintiff

—„.. .
had become ship's husband. Owen having become
a bankrupt, the defendants, as Commissioners, had
a full right to inquire into the history of this mort-
gage debt of 7,0001. For the purpose of doing so,
they summoned the plaintiff before them. He had
been allowed as ship's husband a Commission of
175/. on the sale of the Exmouth to the bankrupt
Owen. The Commissioners wanted to make it ap-
pear that the mortgage transaction was tainted with
usury, in order to prevent that debt from being
brought against the bankrupt's estate. They
wanted to show that the money was the plaintiff's
own, although stated to have been advanced on his
brother's account. The plaintiff denied this, and
then the Commissioners got hold of his books, and
commenced an examination upon them which ran
into a detail of all his concerns; and because he did
not give them all the information they required,
they committed him to prison no less than four times.
He now came to the specific ground of commitment
in respect of which the action had been brought.—
The plaintiff was brought up before tke Commis-
sioners on the 29th of April last. His ledger was
then produced, and he was asked " Does that ac-
count contain the particulars of all the purchases
and sales made by you ?" and he answered, " Yes,
it does." He was then requested to read all the
entries in the account. His Counsel objected to

his doing so, on the ground that this was not an in-
quiry relating to the affairs of the bankrupt; and he
(rite plaintiff) having declined to read the entries,
a warrant of committal was made out for refusing
to answer what the Commissioners called a ques-
tion, but which was no question at all. Under that
warrant the plaintiff had been kept in custody fif-
teen days, fourteen of which he had been confined
in Newgate. The learned Counsel, after a few
further observations, concluded his address by
making a strong appeal to the Jury for damages.
The plaintiff's attornies put in their bill of costs,
connected with the plaintiff's commitment, and the
application to the Court of Exchequer for his dis-
charge. It amounted to 86/. 2•. 4d., including a
charge cf 10/. 2s. for a copy of the warrant of com-
mitment, which, it was stated, consisted of up-
wards of 300 folios. It was proved also that the
plaintiff had paid 31. a week for his board and lodg-
ing with Mr. Wontner in Newgate.
Mr. F. POLLOCK, for the defendants, then ad-
dressed the Jury at great length, who after three or
four minutes' deliberation, found for the plaintiff—
Damages 2501.
The case was not concluded till half-past seven
o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ji.x. 16.

SMITH AND OTHERS V. CAMPBELL AND OTHERS.

This was an action for use and occupation.
Mr. Serjeant 'FADDY stated the plaintiffs case.
The plaintiffs, J. Smith, J. Stephens, and J. Cook,
were lessees of two persons named Wyatt and Far-
rell, under whom they occupied a place of public
amusement stalled the Pavilion Theatre. Shortly
after the destruction of the Brunswick Theatre, the
defendants, Campbell, Schuler, and Cooper, took
the Pavilion Theatre from the plaintiffs under an
agreement by which the rent now claimed was pay-
able. The agreement commenced on the 28th of
March, 18!S, and was to continue in force till the
following Michaelmas, during which period the de-
fendants undertook to pay a rent of 151. a week for
the use of the theatre. They entered into possession,
and occupied the house for a considerable time; but
failing to pay the rent, the present action was brought
for its recovery.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE said, the house in question
had been taken under an agreement from the plain-
tiffs, who were themselves lessees of Wyatt and Far-
rell. These persons had formerly used the premises
for the exhibition of stage plays, but afterwards
quitted London and went to Liverpool. On their
return from that place they were desirous of again
possessing themselves of the premises, and the
plaintiffs and their lessors endeavoured to turn out
the defendants by force. Peace-officers were, how-
ever, sent for, and this attempt was defeated. They
then resolved to attempt by fraud what they could
not accomplish by force. With this view, Wyatt
and Farrell sent in a broker to levy a distress for a
pretended claim of rent, amounting to 520/., and
alleged to be due to them from the present plaintiffs.
As the defendants did not know whether this claim
was or was not well-founded, and us they were un-
willing to have their own property in the theatre
taken under the distress, they proposed to Messrs.
Wyatt and Farrell to deliver up the theatre with the

iittings-up as they then stood, in satisfaction or the
alaini. Wyatt and Farrell consented, and having taken
the receipts of the night's performance, and then being
allowed to take possession of the theatre, they dis-
charged the defendants from any further claim. Yet,
notwithstanding the performance of this agreement
on the pat: of the defendants, the plaintiffs now ven-
tured to claim from them rent alleged to have been
due before the distress was put in by Wyatt and
Farrell. This unjust attempt, however, would be
defeated ; for, not only would the defendants set up
their payment of the sum alleged to have been due
by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Wyatt and Farrell, but
they would prove that the place had not been duly
licensed, and that by the terms of the agreement it
was to be fitted up and used as a theatre. As this
was an illegal purpose, under the provisions of the
25th Geo. 11. cap. 36, the plaintiffs could not
1./elver rent for a place intended to be thus illegally
employed.
Samuel Abraham, a broker, was called, and proved
the levy of the distress, and the agreement thereupon
made. He stated that while the defendants had the
house, plays were performed there. He often went
and saw dancing. .
Mr. Semjeant WILDS—That brings it within the
Act, according to the case of " Gallini v. Laforet."
Justice PARK••-•I think so.

Mr. Serjeant TADDT—Oh I my Lord, that case
only applies to good dancing.—(A laugh.) It was
an Opera-house case. They were not Opera dancers
at the Pavilion Theatre.—(Laughter.)
The witness was asked what performances he saw
at the Pavilion Theatre ? Ile answered—Plays of
all sorts : the regular drama, like Drury-lane and
Covent•garden, but not so grand."
Why, what regular drama did you ever see there?
—Raising the Wind.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Serjeant‘TADDY—l wish they had raised.-it-
high enough to pay our rent.
Mr. Sedeant WILDE—Did you ever see a tragedy
there ?—Yes, I have seen Douglas and Othello.
Mr. Justice PARK—There, brother Taddy, you
have one of Shakspeare's plays.
Mr. Setjeaut TADDY —BLit they played it very
badly, my Lord; did they not, Mr. Abraham ?
Witness—Oh, they acted it in their own way, not
very well—they were only lame actors.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Serjeant TADDY—My Lord, he says they
were lame actors ; that gets rid of the dancing.—
(Laughter.)— Were there not horses there ? Not
at that time; there were horses there before the de-
fendants took the place, but the horses were seized
under a commission of bankruptcy ; when the de-
fendants had the place, there were plays, and music,
singing, and dancing.
Mr. Serjeant 'FADDY—What do you call dancing ?
Mr. Justice PARK—Brother Teddy, you know
what dancing is; you are a younger max than I, and
probably dance still; in my time, 1 could have told
what dancing was, but my dancing days are aver.—
Verdict for the defendants.