The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, DEc. 5.
ORME V. WRIGHT.

His Lordship the MASTER of ii;ilOLLs delivered an
elaborate judgment in this case, observing that " this is a
bill which prays a declaration that the defendant is a trustee
for the plaintiff of the messuages and premises in the bill
mentioned, on payment of what is justly due for principal
and interest in respect of the mortgage of 1,2001. in the bill
mentioned, and the fine and expenses attending the renewal
in the bill mentioned, and a declaration that the plaintiff is
entitled to redeem the said premises. It also prays an ac-
count. It does not appear to me that Mr. Orred (Mr.
Wright's agent) has now, or can have, any interest what-
ever in these translctions. If a case had been raised, as
represented by the defendant, to set aside the sale, and to
bring the parties to the same state in which they were-prior
to the sale, then there was no doubt that the estate would
become vested in Mr. Orred, and he would of necessity
become a party to the suit, the suit proceeding on the foot-
ing, that the assignment of the lease made by Mr. Orred
to Mr. Wright was to be set aside, and the object being to
declare that, under such circumstances, Mr. Wright was a
trustee for the plaintiff, on the payment of what was due.
Unless, indeed, Mr. Orred has an interest in the money in-
vested, it does not appear necessary that he should be a
party to these proceedings. The remaining question is about
the costs. This is a case in which I think the plaintiff is
entitled to redeem on the payment of what is due from
her. In the ordinary case it is on the payment of " prin-
cipal, interest, and costs." The costs, however, to which
the mortgagee is entitled are not the costs of disputing the
right of the mortgage or to redeem. I, therefore, think
that the costs of the suit, up to the bearing, must be paid
by the defendant."

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Row. 5.
MORTON V. SIIALDERS.
Mr. COCKBURN stated that this was an action brought by
the plaintiff, who was a dramatic author, to recover damages
to which he was entitled under an Act of Parliament passed
a few years since, with a view to protect the rights of that
class of authors. The Act in question was the 3d and 4th
of William IV., c. 15, by which it was enacted that if
any person, without the consent or authority of the au-
thor, should cause any dramatic work to be represented on
the stage, he should be liable for each and any such re-
presentation to the payment of an amount of not less than
forty shillings, or to the full amount of the benefit and ad-
vantage arising from such representation, or the injury or
loss sustained by the plaintiff therefrom. The plaintiff in
this case now proceeded upon the provisions of that Act.
The defendant was the proprietor of the theatre at South-
ampton. In the year 1837, Mr. Morton wrote a piece
called The Spitfire, which was first produced on one of
the London theatres. Its very successful representation
there led the defendant to think that it might be advan-
tageously produced at Southampton, and he accordingly
represented it on the boards of the theatre of that town on
the Gth and 10th of August last. The defendant had
not thought fit to obtain Mr. Morton's consent to its re- .
presentation, nor to offer him any remuneration for the use
of it.