The Sun.
London, England, 1813-08-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIbENCEI

COURT Or' CIIANCLRY, AUGUST 4.

. . .
10; rAn „tE LysTrAt IN NATTER aoLnErto.
This II'JS a VetitiOn in the Bankruptey of the
MesSrs. Bolder° and. Co. pr4ing that the Loan
CHANCELLOR may determine ol• adjudge tWastrinS,
amounting to above eight thousand pounds, the
product of Stock in differet:t funds, sold fOr the
benefit of a Mr. Lushington, upon an undertaking
Of the Messrs. Boldern, that restitution Slunild be
!Dade of the amount of the stocks by them, in the
event of nor,-payntent by Mr. Lushingtort. The
Petition prayed an order for liberty to prove such
debt against the assets of Messrs. All d
Fur-
slant to their contract or -agreement, to pay in
default of Mr. Lushington's payment.
The Petition was opposed, on the groiind that,
the word's of the undertaking did not amount to a
contract, being by parole and in loose terms; and
that if constituting a contract, it was usurious, as
by the possible rise of the price of stocks, the pe-
titioner might receive more than five per cent. the
lawful interest for money, contrary to ,the sta-
tutes. Mr. MONTAGU having for the petitioner
stated, that it was a clear case for him, was re-
plied to by Mr; LEACH, that the petitioner was
riding an high and rapid horse to gallop over the
course, while he was of a contrary opinion, since
the road appeared too rugged and difficult, for the
petitioner' to get over.
The LORD CHANCELLOR,' premi;ing that the
course was not easy perhaps for the client of Mr.
Montagu, since, if he did not well resist the usuri.-
ous charge, he might be thrown lout of his saddle,
stated this to be far from a plain case, hut both
doubtful and: difficult. His Lordship said, his
doubt was so great, there being no case like this
ever decided, that he should in this stage of the
‘'inatter'only direct a case to be framed for the
opinion of.a Court of Common Law:---A case was
directed.

HOME CIRCUIT.

FIERTVORD ASSIZES, Atm. 3.

rutPrs v, 'BARMAN.

This case was an issue oat of the Court of
Chancery, tel.try the right of tithes arising. out of
the ha►nlet of Luffenall, in this county, and the
question was, whether the hamlet of Latflenall be-
hinged to the parish of Yardley, or the parish of

Serjeant StiENIERD, for the plaintiff, stated
that tithes, from time immemorial, were taken of
the hamlet by the parish of Yardley ; but there
was some singularity that the Vicar of .Yardley
had paid 15/. to Clothall, unquestionably for sciinc-
portion of ilia tithes, but 'what that palm) was it
was not easy to ascertain. They had also an an-
cient document in the time of Edward I. as anti-

• quarks seemed to agree,•and in that document.
Yardley was granted cmii Luffenall, which seemed
to imply that Luffenall 'vas then considered, as a
part of the parish of Yardley. There was also an
ancient indictment against a road in Lutfcnall-
street,'in the parish of Yardley. This descrip-
tion in the indictment would shew. that Lutf-
enall-street was then considered as the parish of
Yardley. He should moreover produce so
old terrier, which, stated that two-thirds:*
the ~ tithes belonged to Yardley; and one,
third, it there should be a full tthird, to Clothull
What the latter expression meant, " if there.
Should be' ii full third," he confessed he, did not
very well understand. Inc should also produce a
land tax assessment, in which the hamlet of Ulf-
culla!! was rated as a part of Yardley. On these
documents he contended that the evidence clearly
established Lutfenall to be part of the pariah of
Yardley.

The several documents Nvere then put in and
read, but with respect to the assessment on the
land, it appeared to be entitled '° a late fOr the
Oats and Barley due to the King by composition
for Yardley.

The Loin Cutup JUSTICE doubted the propri-
ety of receiving this, and it (lid not appear to be
any aisessisent made by virtue of any Act of Par-
liament ;. it was dated 1633. He thought some
account ought to be given 'auto the history of this
sort of rate. The marriages and burials were also
very few.
Mr. Setjt.BESlYfor the defendant, commented
on the above evidence with his usual ingenuity,
and in answer produced a variety of perambula-
tions of the parish of Clothall, in which they
included Lutfenall as part of that -parish; be also
adduced some documents as evidence to the same
effect.

The Jury found for thedefendant.--The Assizes
finished.

POLICE.

PANTI !EON THEATRE.

MARLBOROUGII-STREET;-Ail information 'was

yesterday heard at this Office before N. CONANT
and It. Baker, Esqrs. preferred by Mr. iliartin, of
the Stable-yard, St. James'.., against Mr. Cundy,
the builder and proprietor of the Theatre, for ille-
gally promoting the performance of the regular
drama at the: above house. It is known to the
public that the Theatre was opened a fortnight
ago, by the authority of a license from the Magis-
trates for the pertOrmance of English Operns„
and it was urged in the present instance that Abe
regular drama was nightly performed' there, 'with.
out the authority of a,patent, or a license from
the Lord Chamberlain'. In support of the infor-
mation Mr. Raymond, the performer, was called,
who stated, that he went to the Pantheon on the
first night of its opening; the 22d of July, when
the Opera of " The Cabinet" was performed in the
same manner as at one of the winter theatres. The
language was spoken, and not chaunted, and the
only variation was the sound .of a piano-forte at
intervals. Proof was next adduced that no patent
had been granted to the Theatre for the perform-
ance of the drama, nor had any license been ob-
tained of the Lord Chamberlain to authorize such
proceedings. The Theatre originally was licensed
by the Lord Chamberlain for the performance of
Italian Operas, but such bad long since expired.
The Solicitor, in support of the information, pro-
duced various letters of Mr. Candy's to the Chain-,
berlain's Office soliciting a license, and stating
himself to have been ruined by delusive promises