The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 18, 1862.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 17.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir AV. P. Wood.)

BOIT6ICAULT V. WEBSTER-WEBSTER V. BOITICAULT,

The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said
that if Mr. Webster were right in the contention
raised by his cross bill that would go far to decide
the question. upon the other bill. In order to obtain
his injunction he must make it clear that Mr, Bouci-
cault had by the agreement ofJuly, 1661, restrained
himself from hiring any other theatre, or bringing
out and performing in his pieces anywhere but at
the Adelphi. But no such case was raised by the
cross-bill. It was said that by engaging with Mr.
Websterin the managementin partnership there we s
an implied stipulation that rivalry and competition
should be kept as much as possible in abeyance,
But it was the constant practice for the member of
one firm to engage in another, and even a competing
business, unless there was an express stipulation
to the contrary in the partnership deed, and this
was by no means uncommon. hut, in the absence
of such a stipulation, there was no principle prohi-
biting a partner from engaging in another business,
and no injunction to restrain him from so doing
could be obtained. In the agreement of July, 1861,
the inference was as far
as possible the other way.
(His Honour referred to clause 8, already set out).
There was strong ground for coming to the conclu-
sion that any stipulation as to non-performance at
other theatres was not contemplated. Neither party
so understood it, for it appeared that Mr. Webster
had played his own parts at other theatres, and also
that Mr. Boucicault's plays had been performed
elsewhere than at the Adelphi, in either ease with
the perfect acquiescence of the other partner. Mr.
Webster's motion, therefore, must be refused ; and
this brought him to the consideration of the applica-
tion on behalf of Mr. Boncicault. The equity upon
which his bill was rested was that Mr. Webster
vas interfering, and interfering injudiciously, with
Mr. Boucicault's department in the theatre. Even
on the ex parte application there appeared to be
difficulties in the plaintiff's case. To a certain
extent the theatre would be damnified by an
announcement being held out to the public which
could not be performed. If the case were rested
on the contract, and the contract only, there
would be much to be said on behalf of Mr. Boum-
cault'a view. His Honour, after referring to the
agreement, said that the stronger the case upon the
agreement was in favour of the plaintiff, so much the
less, looking at the subsequent circumstances, woild
the court be inclined to grant his present applica-
tion. As had been very forcibly put by Mr. Sergeant
Ballantine, the plaintiff would be the person left
with the sole right of selecting pieces, performances,
and actors, and making all the stage arrangements
for the Adelphi, while he had subsequently taken
another theatre. He was not precluded by the agree-
ment and he had a right to do so, but would the court
assist Mr. Boucicault in a course in which he might
(thought his Honour was far from suggesting that
he would do so) so select the performances at the
Adelphi as to make the interests of that theatre en-
tirely subservient to those of Drury-lane, where he
had so large, and, in fact, the sole interest ? In such
a ease the court would not be inclined to assist the
plaintiff, though he repeated that he was far from
imputing any such intention to that gentleman. His
Honour, after adverting to certain negotiations for
taking the Princess's Theatre, said that Mr. Bouci-
cault reasonably enough -thought that he was at
liberty to enter into a contract for Drury-lane or any
other theatre in which he could make his arrange-
ments to the best advantage. Althoagh the objec-
tions to bringing out the " Colleen Bawn" in the
first week in June did appear to have been rased
just at the very moment when the negotiation for
the Princess's was on foot, yet anybody would at
once see the objections then made as to want of new
scenery, fresh engagements, &c., were bona
,fide
objections. It had been urged that after M. r. Bou-
cicault took Drury-lane he raised fresh objections,
but this really did not seem to be the case. If he
had been disposed to withdraw himself and his
pieces wholly from the Adelphi, he would not have
suggested the performance of the " Colleen Bawn"
for July and. August, two months longer than was
originally proposed. It was to? much to impute a
scheme to Boucicault of obtaining the " Colleen
Bawn" for Drury-lane only, when Webster himself
objected to the performance of it after June at the
Adelphi, on the ground that novelty was impera-
tively required. There were no just grounds for say-
ing that any breach of faith could be imputed to
Mr. Boucicault. The motion, though refused, would
be refused on the other grounds already stated, and
that it would be quite impossible for Mr. Webster
to control the arrangements of Mr. Boucicault with
respect to the Adelphi when that gentleman was
engaged with Drury-lane. In refusing the motion
he had the happiness of adding that be was con-
vineed: that by so doing ha was adopting the best
possible course for the interests of both parties.
Both motions woni therefnre ha refused, and, fol-
lowing the usual course, the costs would be costs in
the cause.

The court was crowded to excess up to the late
hour at which his Honour rose. There could only
have been one opinion as to the utter inadequacy of
the small, ill-contrived, and worse ventilated shed,
called by courtesy a court, for the decent accommo-
dation of the bar, the solicitors, or the general
public.

~~ V