The Sun.
London, England, 1813-12-13 00:00:00

L.IW IN-TELLlctet,

tsOrnt • .01.1>:tt:M., bee. 11.
%T.11..1NN orntA.-L-\S p.tp,its 45. T.A.vVott.
Jtqw,NIENT:
hearing of cause was ibis Any ctlnclltch-
ed, and judgment given as, folloWs
The LORD Cititticki.Lutt began by obterving
upon the state of the Cause; in regard to parties
whp Were brought before the Conrt., and others
who were not ; and said, that he'Nvonlil iiroceed
to ludgmeut npo't thb faith that those parties who
hac not 'appeared for their interests to state any
objection at the bar, were willing to abide by any'
decree,which he should think it consistent with
hit duty to male. Mr. Gould had, •hecome the
purchaser' front Mr. Taylor of seven-sliteenthS of
this concern, and fl mortgaget de the rettiaining
nine-sixteenths. This purchase, hosyever, was
necessarily subject to all the prior incumbranLeS
on the concern Created by Mr: Taylor. Mr.
GooldN rotild extend no farther ; for the
only title,which Mr. Taylor could give him was
one subject to these incutubrances. Trustees had
been appointed and he must take it now, that if
they,. in beh'alf of the iticumbrances, had any uh-,
jeetion to these proceedings, or to the result
prayed' by the bill, 'they would have appeared and
stated such their object ions. •
So mach in regard to the parties. He noiv
clone to the more material subject in the present
cause—the merits.

The agreement upon which this partnership or
joint concern %vm founded, took place, he belicv-;
ed, in 1803, between Mr. Taylor and the deceased
Mr. Gould, which latter person Mr. Waters now
represented. By this agreement it was provided,
that no act of importance in the conduct of that
concern should be done by either of the parties
without the consent of the other ; and all the
Opera-house property was minutely regulatwl,
even down to the privilege of selling fruit there.
The money arising front the convent was to be'
placed in the hands of a treasurer appointed by.
both parties, and—not to be removed .except by
joint consent. That money was. to be paid into
banking-boose appointed for that pitrpoe by both
parties ;. and these bankers were not to be changed
without the joint consent of the s,Lnie patties.
was also agreed,: that the sutra of :;;91. per week,
itatiO more, ihonid be drakvO-out for the cult-tot-4
expenses Of the Opera-house by the manager ; '
that where nny more was t.etlitired, it must he
taken out with the consclit of both parties. Per-
formers liitewise could not be engageai at high sa-,
-larks without the joint consent of both
&c.'&e..

While Mr. Goold eontintied in the managenient ,
it appeared that matters had gone vu very well.
When 'Mr.. Coal! died, Mr..7rayl 1:•,. by the terms
of agreement, became toe Juan:ll4er : hut in the
course of that management it was evident, even on
Islr, aylor's own admission, that the provisions
of the agreement had been almost constantly vio-
lated in' nearly every in;ticle. The Treasurer had
been dismissed, the .BaUkers had been changed,
the money hid been applietiby Mr Taylor without
the consent of Mr. Waters, the representative of
Mr. Goold. As tin .excuse for this, it was stated,
that •ig wag imooseilile that modern performances
could be tnipported upon the terms ,cosititintml•in
that agreement ; that Mr. Waters was refractory,
and that the vioation 'of the stipulations had be-
come absolutely necessary for the existence of the
concern, and consequently for the interest of Mr.
IVaters, as well as Mr. Taylor. AU this might
be so. Mr. Taylor might possibly.be justified in
a moral point of view, for there might, no doubt,
be-violations of contracts under ciremnstances
which left no imputation on cktracter ; but ,the
gnestion Was, whether this was an answer in a
Colirt of Law or Equity ? now Was. the Judge
try decide between them ?—Mr. Taylor said, for
instance, that it was worth while to give Madame
Catalan' 50001. or 60001. for singing.during one
saason. Mr. Waters might say that she was not
worth so much. .11e .(the Chancellor) knowing
ing nothing about the matter, except what he
sometimes beard from others, representing, if he
might say so, idy aro barbafcius ignorance on the
subject, he could only say, that Mr. Taytor's pro-
posal might be a very.wise one, and that if it was
a Wise one, be was very sorry that 'Mr. Waters
!hold& fooli4hly object to it ; he might say that
Mr. Water's 'opinion might be a i wise one, and
that it'might be foolish in Mr. Taylor to object
to it ; but then what he had to say to both was,
,that here was their contract, and that upon that
contract he was bowed roam _

Then as to the partnership Or joint concern
,licing dissolved by the impossibility of carrying it
into execution, Or of complying with its terms, it-
had been said, that partnerships might'exist under
such circumstances which the law could 'Jot put
nn cud to, as in the ease of a barbarian of a hub-
band united to an amiable and nnoffendinc.; wife ;
and Co Oat it bad been answered, that by an ap-
14i-cation . Nichol, the Wolk
!east be so far tuizzled,,as to prevent his injuring
the lamb. Cases too, hail been Mentioned where
it Was alleged, that the partnership had been
held to be dissolved by the lunacy of oncrill the
parties ; and it bud hen stated, that an opinion,
of this had contradicted a doctrine clown by
Lord Kenyon on thii subject. Ile Was, not aware,
„however, that he had 'said auy.thing which had
either contradicted.or approved of the doctrine of
Lord Kenyon. Lord Thorlow had. always cow!.
sidsred this part of the 'jurisdiction of the Cotirt.,
as very difficult' in its exercise,;. and Lord Tbtir-
low was,not in any case disposed to go ¢o.rapidly
to a couchtsion as Lord -Uttnyon. But on t,he
subject Of ltinacy,- be was not disposed to i;ly
much. Th'eCa‘e was not before him. It one of
two partners became a 'hinatic, and it was .extra-,
Unshed clearly, and beyonCall, doubt, that the.
lunacy was incurable ; and that partner was one
wit° had eng'sgedsby his contract to takcan active
part in the partnership concern ; there could-44-
no damages certainly, for the act of God wrought
no injury,: but it might be doubtful, whether
Court of Equity would hold one party to a con-
tract, the terms cf which it had become actually
impor,sibk for the other to fulfil : it was likely,
however, that a case should occur. ~,,
R ut'reverting to the cae more immediately be-
fore him,. it had, htqf II said, that Mr. WaterS might
proceed at law with constant actions fur these

f• ?rr• 41 • •" •
%:0 10M eorennaF, cho,,e . bat a Co!
of Equity conic' enjoin and restrain, in the
;inn= nni; that inrihliction ieettigniied t
lay►• its the hind., partfy for •rha very iinrpose
restraining such Vekatioits 'proceedings.
1-TIAO tie *belle,
,the 'violationt of the conlNtet.
had furbtishol .the 3udge nith siacient ground
to say, that t'nere NV:IS to it. And he vr"
of opinion that theic wa,k an toil to it. It woim
be ft* the interest of all parties, that tilt: whole'
Otonld be Sold, instead of selling the share of One.
The Decree, therefore; under all the circtim.
stances, drool 'lit: "Att. of the whole,' -after
an account.,
.of comse; being taken, in order to
ascertain and settle the several• rights.
then came, the :Most diffibuit- part of thisah:..
jeet—the appointment of a•Manager in the heart
time. It %.1.119 .stated that it WAS imposSible for
Manager now to conduct the conceit) upon
lthe
terms Of the old contract ; and vet it was yel
difllealt for the Court to apppoint a Manager with
libtrty% to comb= it in any Other manner, st
letv.t without making some .previotis int:1(1114a!
which had occurred to him. lie,
therefore, re-
served that consideration for • the present, not
thinking it proper, to make it a part of the Decree.
If the parties had a disposition to coati P.) an lir
r:ingenicrit mining themelves, they ought la
so without delay,•ns it did not appear to biro
- likely that be could be brought to Change
neon and judgment Which he had note given. 4