The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-23 00:00:00

FALCONER V. CRATTERTON

This was an application for au injunction by the plaintiff,
Mr. Edward Falconer, of Drury-lane Theatre, against the
defendant, Mr. Frederick B. Chatterton, to restrain the
defendant from opening the theatre on Saturday, this
evening, and for a dissolution of partnership, which had
existed between the plaintiff and defendant since 1862.
Mr. Henry J. Hunter appeared in support of the appli-
cation (instructed by Mr. John Strutt, solicitor) ; and Mr.
Downing Bruce (instructed by Messrs. Walter and Moojer)
represented the defendant.
From the statement of counsel it appeared that the
plaintiff had first employed defendant in 1861 as manager
of the Lyceum Theatre, of which plaintiff was then pro-
prietor. In August, 1862, plaintiff purchased from Mr. E.
T. Smith the lease of Drury-lane Theatre for £5,000 for the
residue of a term of seven years, and subject to a yearly
rent of £1,500. The plaintiff expended large sums of money
in decorating the theatre, and employed the defendant as
manager. In March, 1863, plaintiff became seriously ill,
and his health was so impaired that he was unable to at-
tend to business. The plaintiff was therefore induced t 3
take the defendant as a partner, and a draught deed was
prepared by the solicitor of the plaintiff, who was at that
time also the solicitor of the defendant, and read over to the
plaintiff and executed by him. By the agreement plaintiff
was to have two-thirds, and the defendant the remaining
third of the profits. A prosperous business was carried on
under the direction of the defendant. In March, 1864,
another deed of partnership was executed, by which the
deed of March, 1863, was altered and varied by the second
partnership, the plaintiff and defendant were to be entitled
to equal shares in the profits of the theatre, and the profits
to arise for the right to perform any drama, or comedy, or
dramatic writings of the plaintiff, either in London or
the provinces. In case of dissolution of partnership by six
months' notice, the defendant should be entitled to with-
draw a sum of £3,675, paid by him to plaintiff for partner-
ship capital. The plaintiff now stated that the last named
deed had never been perused by him, and that when he
signed it, ho was so ill that his hand had to be guided.
This, however, was denied by the affidavit of the defen-
dant, and now asked the Court to interfere by appointing
a receiver, dissolving the partnership, and granting an in-
junction restraining the opening of the theatre this (Sa-
turday) evening.
His Honour refused to appoint a receiver or grant the
injunction prayed for, and ordered the cause to stand over
till the first day of next term.
LINGWOOD V. TILE STOWMAIMET PAPERMAItING COMPANY
(LIMITED).

This was another application for an injunction, and
specially appointed to be heard to-day. It is a question of
considerable importance to manufacturers, the application
being for an injunction to restrain the working of the
abovenamed paper mills, on the ground that they dis-
charged noxious fluids and other foul matter into the river
so as to damage the plaintiff's property.
Mr. Henry Phear (instructed by Messrs. Pownall, Son,
and Cross) appeared in support of the application, and
Mr. Downing Bruce (instructed by Messrs. Kimbcr and
Ellis) represented the defendants.
His Honour refused to grant the injunction, and ordered
the case to stand over till the 9th of October, the defendants
in the meantime to file affidavits.

EXTRAORDINARY CAPTURE.—Last week two
gentlemen of Devizes were fishing in the lake in Lord
Methuen's park at Corsham Court, when one of them
hooked au eel, and as he was about to land it, a large jack
made a voracious spring at it, and succeeded in getting it
into its jaws. The eel, however, before the jack could
disable it, slipped a portion of its body through the jack's
gill, and unable to dislodge it, the jack was pulled to land
with its prey in its mouth. Tho eel weighed a pound and a
half, the jack upwards of seven pounds.— Devizes Gazette.
At Barcelona the recrudescence of cholera con-
tinues. The Diane states that the total of deaths there on
the 14th was 10G, of which G 3 were from cholera, and 3
from cholerine.