The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-22 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH-SATURDAY.

WARNE AND ANOTHER V. CALVERT.
This action was brought to recover from the defendant,
as administrator of a deceased Gentleman, various sums of
money which had been advanced to a third party.
Sir F. POLLOCK observed that it would be the most pre-
ferable course to allow a verdict to be entered for the plain-
tiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on a special'ease.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented, and a verdict for
the plaintiff was entered accordingly.

COMMON PLEAS-SATURDAY.

DE ➢fEDEIROS V. POLDEN AND ANOTHER.

The action in this case was brought for the recovery of
damages in consequence of an alleged breach of a charter
party. The plaintiff had shipped a cargo of oranges on
board a vessel belonging to the defendant, called the Vixen,
at Terceira, in February, 1835, and on. the arrival of that
vessel at Gravesend Reach the oranges were found to be in
a damaged state, having become heated during the voyage.
The charter party provided that the bulk-heads should be
taken out and placed under the cargo, and that_the vessel
be properly ventilated. by means of ivind sails and
es m the hatchways. The oranges had been gathered
during the rainy season, and shipped in a wet state, and by a
note appended to the charter party, the Captain expressly
,stipulated that he was not to be responsible for any damage
done that was not wilful.

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

EXCHEQUER COURT.

THE VICTORIA THE ATRE.-LE VY V. BERRY AND OTHERS.

Mr. V. Richards applied on the part of the plaintiff, the
equitable mortgagee, for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants, Daniel Berry, Joseph Glossop, Thomas Charles
Forbes, and Jacob Connop, the proprietors of the Victoria
Theatre, from receiving the monies paid into that esta-
blishment ; and further, for the appointment of a receiver.
It appeared that at the time the defendant Glossop became
a bankrupt, the defendant was one of his creditors to the
amount of somewhere about 4001., and that after he had
succeeded in procuring his certificate, the debt was reac-
knowledged or renewed. Subsequently to that period he
advanced, by way of loan to the defendants, a further sum
of 270/. towards the glass curtain. For that advance he
was to receive 6/. per week in the shape of a payment, as
hire,otthe curtain. He had likewise lent various sums of
money for the purposes of the . theatre, for which an ar-
rangement was entered into with' Glossop, which was af-
terwards oonfirmed by his co-partners. The plaintiff, in
his bill stated that as much as
.6001. were due and owing
to. him, and prayed that the Court would order its'repay-
nient out of the receipts. He had, under the arrangement
alcove-mentioned, appointed a person to act in the capacity
of treasurer, and had appropriated to his own use a private
box, with the additional privilege of writing a certain num-
ber of orders. In the course of the last month the defen-
dants had ejected him from the theatre, and a suit had
'thereupon been commenced.

Mr.'Simlcinson, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Monroe -appeared
for the several defendanti.

• The argumemts•of counsel occupied the whole of Friday,
and great part of Saturday, and at their conelusiop
I,ord ABINGER, in giving judgment, said---7 The parties, it
appeared, had entered into a certain contract bywhich the
plaintiff had obtained possession of the theatre as mort-
gagee of the premises, and on that, too, his security de-
pended, and he was subsequently turned out of such pos-
setssion without any consent on his part, or any offer to dis-
charge his claim. Under all the circumstances of the case
14eUnceived that there could be no doubt the defendants
would be obliged to permit the plaintiff to reassume posses-
sion of the premises as the mortgagee, and, therefore, upon
. .
an a
,pneation tor.. an injunction to restrain the •defendants
_4.36eiving'and applying the monies, he ilnitiettrir*o-uft
o 'nay was bound to grant it. He did mot-consider that
tl aintiff had been in possession merely for the purpose
o • .forcino, his own benefit, but merely with the view of
eufbreing those claims which he, before his ejection, was en-
.titled to receive at the hands of the defendants. Upon
these grounds, therefore, he did not think that the plaintiff
witild be impeached. They would have the Opportunity of
filing a cross bill, because, the injunction being granted, the
litoper course was next to file a cross bill. 'That was their
oily remedy. In that case he was to grant the-injunction
to restrain the defendants from collecting, gaining, or re-
ceiving the monies taken at the Victoria Theatre, or any of
the gains, profits, or losses, in any manner. In
,addition to
that, he thought there ought to be a receiver appointed, for
the purpose of exercising the office and of performing the
duties of treasurer, receiving the entire monies of the thee-
-11•- Now, it was his wish at the same time to make this
efindition, with the view of saving expense, viz., that in
filing the cross bill a receiver should be appointed, and
should give security to the Master, which would afterwards
ke explained in the demurrer: He should grant the injunc-
tion on those terms.
The Court *was crowded with parties connected with the
th eatre.