The Sun.
London, England, 1807-11-21 00:00:00

WATERS V. TAYLOR.

This day Sir 5..110241LLY spoke in behalf -of the,
Defendant. He began by expressing. his regret that.
the Theatres, which were intended as sources of
pleasure and amusement, should be converted into
Theatres of contest and litigation. His Lordshrp,
both 'from the present application, and from. others
on a foi•rner occasion, seemed to be looked up to by,
those .who were conneEted with them. as. a lint
of Manager-,General, to. be resorted to on every oc-
casion; and though he had often 'professed a total
ignorance of .suvli matters, yet the Plaintiff seemed.
to think that be might call in to his assistance some
experienced veteran of the Stage, ,in the same way
as, in cases conneeted with the shipping interest, the
Elder Brethren of Trinity House were .often con-
sulted by the Judges. lt appeared to him that Many
of the charges brought'against the Defendant, and
'upon which the-Court would be called upon to de-
cide, were they to assumethe management of the
Theatre, were frivolous in the extreme: Of this fri-
volous sort were the charges of profusion, because
Alr. Taylor had employed eight carpenters rather
than five,
,and three watchmen rather than two; and
last, though not least, of his still.continuaty to eth-_
ploy a poor dresi-niaker who had'beert dete&ed in
stealing candle ends. Of this last charge Mr. Taylor
had never heard a syllable till be found it gravely
stated in the Bill before the Court. Of all these
charges this one thing was obvious, that they were
unimportant and frivolous,' perfettly unfit for. the
decision of this Court. 'Another point also insisted

on was, that he had admitted fewer free tickets than
usual ; but by this very means, and by discharging
useless retainers, he had Materially increased the
profits of the Theatre;. and the prOduce of thelast
season had been unusually great. One of the grave
subjects of complaint against Mr. Taylor also was,.
that he had borrowed money of some of the interior
atiors. • So high an idea seemed to be entertaineJ of
the dignity of a Manager, that this trifling circum—
stance was supposed to degrade. him, and render
him unworthy of such a high and dignified office.
Another objection was, his ignorance foreigU
languages, and consequent inability to communicate
with the 'players, who were mostly foreigners. But
how could this Court judge how fiir and in What
degree such knowledge was necessary ? Mr. Taylat
had been twenty years Manager of the Theatte,'
ands his knowledge of these languages in all that
time might be supposed rather to increase than 'to
decrease, it was strange that such an objeCtion
should now, for the first time, be advanced. To

shew how peevish all these Charges were it was only
!- necessary to refer to the late prosperity of the
; Theatre. It had never prospered so much as during
that' very period when the Defendant's non-attend-
ance was described 'as menacing it with total ruin.
At the period when the Opera House Was burned
down, it was saddled with an incumbrance of
70,0001. In addition to this, its re-building cost
98,0001. with other incumbrances to the amount of
20;0001 more. During the management of Mr.
Taylor, with the short interregnum of Mr. Gould, .
all, these debts had been reduced to 23,0001. Which
constitute the whole of the demands that could be,
made on the Theatre ;, and • from the untmampled
prosperity' of last Season, this sum. was likely to be
still farthet reduced ; and yet," in spite of these fads,
it was said, that if the Defendant was continued in
the management, the Theatre would be ruined.—
Nothing could be more peevish or ill-founded than
these allegations. 'lt was observable that none of
the Trustees, Messrs. COnst, Lowten, and Palmet,
had joined in the charges; they seemed perfectly
satisfied with the management. 'Upon the whole,*
he submitted to his Lordship, that. the Theatre had
sustained no injury from the acknowledged absence
of Mr. Taylor, who; while he exercised a general
suPetintendance, employed a .Deputy Manager, ac- !
cording to the usual practice. He would submit
also, whether most of the charges were not frivolous
in themselves; and totally unfit for the decisiota of
the Court ?

Mr. LEACH followed on the samerside. He con-
tended, that the whole. affair was a mere personal
struggleon the part of the Plaintiff for the manage'.
ment of the Theatre, 'in which the Trustees, who'
were certainly interested in its prosperity, took no
concern. On the death of Mr. Geoid, the Plaintiff
aspired to the high office of Manager. His threats
of arrest all, tended to that point, and when he found
that he could not expel Mr. Taylor, by preventing
his regular attendance, he now complains a that
very'irregularity which he himself had caused :-;--
hinc ill ',adapt:cc. The Plaintiff himself had as-
sumed the powers of Manager, and bad engaged
performers to the yearly amount of 7o001: Finding,
however, he could not oust Mr. Taylor, he Made a
proposal, that it 1u would add the performers whom
he had engaged to those Who Mr. Taylor had
en-
gaged for 13,0001. in short, make the whole expence
20,001, then the matter should be acedrrimedated
but otherwise he was determined to bring it into the
Cour& of Chancery, and stigmatise the Detetidant as
a profuse Manager. This was the language of a
man who proposed to add 70001. to the burthent, of
the Theatre.

Air. WET itattAti. for the Defendant, took up
the same argument, and contended that the Plaintiff
bad prevented M. Taylor from coming to the
Th6atre,merely that he might, have
.his absence to ~
urge, as a plea tort is diSinissal, and then he himself
:hoped to till the vacant tlirone. Having disrtiount-
ed•Mr. Taylor, he.expeiEted to vault into his saddle.
It Was Said to be necessary that the Manager should
attend the rehearsals of the various exhibitions,to be
brought forward in the Theatre. Wa4 it necessary
fur hint to make the singers, female is Well as male,
repeat their songs and their airs till they 'were'per-„;
feet in their. parts ? This, he was afrdid, would pore
a difficult task indeed.'. It was the observation ot
puet who knew the world well=» '

•
Omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus, intaraniicbs,
tit nuiludio indllCAnt 4111111u411 cantate , •
11).410M, tafilqUalll 110 i
Stich was the indisposition of singers to display their
powers when requested, in the Augustan age ; and •
he suspetied it was much the sense in the Georgian: ,
It WaS, also the subject of complaint, that the .De-
fondant- had,permitted .114adame Catalani to sing at
private concerts, and by that means cheapened tho,e
powers of song which ought to have been confined
within the walls of the'Orera Houie. But was it

•
, not much letter policy to suppose, that those Who
liad heard her once, would wish to hear her again ?
and, besides, his refusal might have produced a rising
I of that fashionable corps of Ladies wlio Wire the
Support off' the Theatre;.a 'rising which all the laws
ii,4ainit sedition might riot have beenable
to quell.--
?41r. WE'rtiE RA LL was' proceediifg in this style, and
diicomposin the gravity of the Court; when the
LORI). CLIANCELLott observed, that it was difficult:to
"say how,far causes of this nature' were compatible
with the grsvityrof COOrt of Justice:. He rernem-
. bered, that when he was Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas, a cause-came befOre hith from one of the
minor places of amusement, and, among other chri,
ens things, he'found a regulation imposing a fine
upbn the performers proportioned' to the degrees of
intoxication in which they sometimes appeared. Mr.
WI3I4IERkLi proceeded in the same straih of irony,
observing on the charge of profusion in restoring cer-
tain embellishments of the Theatre ; in particular„
there was a painting of Thetis rising out of the sea,
surrounded with the -aquatic deities, which his
Learned Friend (Mr. Fonblanque) might perhaps
have seen and admired, when,. in his younger years,
he .relaxed himself at this place of amusement. These
deities, all begrimed- with dust and age, had been
merely touched up and 'white-washed, and thiswas.
enumerated as an instance of profusion. •

Mr. AGAR then said; that he appeared for a Mi.
Wither, an iticumbrancer, and was proceeding with
his brief, when he was' interrupted- by • •
Mr. FONBLANaUE, who contended that it had no-
thing to do with this suit.
The. LORD CHANCELLOR' said, he remembered
many such extraneous applications in the Drury-lanb
business, to which he ' had listehed, but ha ivould
never do it again.

1 Mr. FON 81. A NOME was then heard for the Plaintiff
in reply. He admitted that were the Court to take
the affairs of the Opera,House into their manage-
ment, they would meet with considerabledifficulties.
But when he recolleaed the anxiety and attention
with which his LOrdship had investigated the. affairs
of another Theatre, and the good effeas that had
resulted from it, he was anxious that this business
Should be • submitted to the same super.intendance.
•If his Lordship thought, that by the deed of 1803,
the parties were bound to submit their disputea to
arbitration, it would lie, perhaps, unnecessary for
him to proceed any further. BUt still- he must ob-
serve, that this ought to have been made a previous
question, and submitted to the 'decision- of the Court.
The Defendant,however, had admitted the superin-
tendance of this'Court, and replied to the present ap-
plication; he felt it therefore incumbent on him to
state the case as strongly for his client as he was able..
The doarine of arbitration might be carried too far ;
for it might be said, that even in-cases of the most
iihameful mismanagement, the Court could not in-
terpose., ,He should therefore take it for granted
that, his Lordship could interpose in-the-present case.
The 'point on,which the whole Matter turned, was,
that the Manager bad a duty to perform, which. Mr.
Taylor, from whatever emus, was ineapableof per-
forming. His' Learned Friends seemed to define 'a
Manager to be a sort of person whO had' no duty to
perform. This reminded him of the derivation of
Areas a non lucendo ;. but ' his Lordship would
think very differently, and being now in possession
of the
.• attendietjs, whale case, would grapple with•all -the diffi-
cult ies,
ape tinaity overcome them.
-. The LOAD CHANCHII,LOR then
proceeded to,deli-
ver hiss opinion.. It was the duty of every Judge,
he said, to meet the difficulties which attended every
cause that-came before him, and the difficulties of
the present case could form no reason for his declin-
ing the consideration of it. It never fell to the lot,
of any Judge perhaps to struggle with greater diffi-
culties than it had done in the Drury-lane concern,.
arid therefore it could not be supposed that he
would decline the present cause on account. of the
diffieulties which might surround it. Even in part-
nership_coucerns; he: would put it to the Court:
whether he did not in genentl recommend it to the
parties to settle the matter themselves, well knows
• .ing'that apAcations to this Court to settle partner-
.shiplisputes were at best but ruinous. If that were
so, hefound it particularlynecessary in this cause to
enquire-how far the parties had provided another
mode of reference, and what were their ideas with
regard to resorting to a Court of Equity. In this
view the. deed of tBu3, to which Mess's. Goold and
Taylor were the, parties, and by which Mr. Wa-
ters, as Executor to Mr. Geoid, must be considered
as bound, that deed was of .great importance. in
that deed the powers of the Manager were described
as very extensive, and were indeed undefined ; hence
would arise the greatest difficulty to this Court in
ascertaining those duties, and in declaring whether
or net they were fulfilled. At the death of Mr.
Gould those powers devolved on Mr. Taylor as fully
as they were ever enjoyed by his predecessor ; be-
sides it seemed against the spirit of the deed that a
Court of.
.Equity should be resorted to at all. The
parties who had. it drawn up, seem to have been
.ahxious to avoid this. They had appointed a tbruin
of their -oWn ; and expressly stated, that all disputes_
touching the duty of a Manager should be settled
by arbitrators, who Were mutually appointed, and
whose decision was to be final and binding on, both
without any suit Whatever. Perhaps it was
not a good covenant Which hounli theM 'ndt, to go to '
law ; yet still the Court would be juStitied iaa pans- '
ing before they took the dispute flora, that forum ;
which the parties themselves had appoieted, and.
which was perhaps best Calculated to settle such disS
putes. It Was probably the' most wholesome' doe,'
twine to say, Jet the parties refer this matter to arbi4
ti..itors,' and npt to this Coutt. -The subjea in dis-
pute was the dutzt of a mateiger, and in the deed
this very subjed was' ordered to be referred to athi-
ttsitnrs. Were the Court to interfere at present, it
emeld , be like giving judicial Mier against an express
comma. In common, partnership concerns there
w:is.no such contrail, and then :the Court did fre- •
queerly interpose on the application of a pakty.---
FloWeier he felt nis•diffieulty in saying, that the ac-'
tire' an E personal exertious of the Manager Were
required by the deed, acid. "necessary to its fulfil-
mein. I,' what'degree personal attendance was tie-
ceisary might be doubtful.. .Upon the whole, he
Wished the partici to pause a week at least, and try
soine means of acatiminOdation by arbitration. If
they again demaniied the interposition of the Court,
he Waii afraid that *lett animerposision 'could nut
take plce Without' doing infinite mischief to ail
concerned.

The deciiion of theva.e of linuenin v. Bazoley,
was poopotied.