The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-16 00:00:00

SURREY THEATRE.

We have taken an opportunity of witnessing the per
formance of Cinderella, which has been brought out at
this place of entertainment. Tile subject is known to
every person as being one of the first tales of childhood,
and it has repeatedly been enacted in various shapes upon
the stage, but we must say that the shape in which it has
appeared at this theatre surpasses all its predecessors in
grandeur, style of acting, and in the vocal and instru-
mental parts. The music is composed of some of
the best works of Ross's!. Mr. Enwis supported
the character of the Prince of Salerno excellently ; his
singing was of a very high character, and affords a prospect
of this promising young actor's reaching to considerable
eminence in his profession. He was deservedly applauded
throughout. VALE, as usual, was admirably amusing ;
his transition from the character of a lackey to that of the
Prince, and his endeavours to support his newly-assumed
rank, were irresistible. By the way a few hints at the
present political state of affairs were eagerly caught at by
the audience and loudly cheered ; for instance, " a good
King is almost as scarce as a good woman." and
"to my thinking. the subjects who have got a good
King cannot make too much of him." The part
of Cinderella was most ably sustained by Miss SOMER.-
...11,LE, who is a great acquisition to this theatre. Her
duet with Mr. Enwria, " Whence this soft and pleasing
flame," was greatly applauded. Miss VINCENT was a
most pleasing Virenella. The scenery and dresses were
very grand, but we must not omit to meution the " nemo-
crstic change and state carriage of Cinderella," which was
superior to any thing we have witnessed for a long time.
A new Farcetta (as it is called in the play-bills) enti-
tled, What will the Ladies do ? followed, It is
a counterpart of the well known question of "What
will th. Lords do? It possesses no intrinsic merit, and but
for the few broad allusions to the " rejection of the Bill"
by the Lords, and their promised refortnstion, would, we
are persuaded, not be tolerated a second night. We were
sorry to perceive Mr. RAYNER, evidently the best actor in
his peculiar line, since the days of JOHN Eau:ay, placed
in a psrt which gave him so little scope for the exercise of
his comic powers. However, the piece so plea-ed the gods,
that ;at its conclusion they c illed foe the national anthem so
lustily, that Mr. C. HILL came forward and promised
that their loyal wishes should be gratified as soon as pos-
sible. The announcement was received with loud cheers,
and in a few minutes the curtain drew up and exhibited
the whole company on the stage. " God save the King"
was then admirably sung by Miss SOMERVILLE, the rest
of the company joining in the chorus, and the audience
standing up uncovered. At its conclusion three hearty
cheers were given. Giovanni iu London concluded the
evening's amusement, in which Miss SONERVILLE
mrst admirably sustained the character of the li-
bertine. Indeed, she bids fair t . become a very
formidable rival to the Queen of the Olympic in this pe-
culiar style of acting. VALE was an excellent _Leporello,
and indeed every character was excee.lingly well sustained,
We were glad to perceive that the spirited manager was
amply rewarded for his endeavours to please the public, by
a very crowded and fashionable audience,

A report has prevailed ill this neighbourhood,
for some days past, that F. al WILTON, who, it is well
known, voted against the second reading of the Reform
13111, has changed his opinion on that important measure.
We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the rumour, but we
are inclined to give credence to it.—. Manchester Chron.

~,..,....,... _.,
' e
COURT OP KING'S BENCH.—(TINS DAY.)
Their Lordships were engaged in hearing arguments
upon motions for new trials, but they were of no general.
importance.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

PIERCE V. BISHOP, GENT.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated the case for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff, Joseph Pierce, a boot and shoe maker, brought
this action to recover from the defendant, an attorney,
three years' arrears of an annuity at 32/. a-year, and a
,um of 56/. for boots and shoes. The defendant bad
,deaded that as to the annuity deed he was not guilty, and
'hat as to the debt for goods sold and delivered, le had •
set-off for professional services done for the plaintiff.
Mr. Frederick Blaney deposed that he was a subscribing
,citness to the annuity deed now produced. He saw it
signed by the defendant and his father.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—There were various
alterations and erasures made in the deed after it wa•
executed by the defendant. The sum of 321. throughout
the deed, and the number of the policy, were all inserted
upon erasures after the execution of the deed.
Mr. GURNEY—Then there is an end of the deed.

Mr. CAMPBELL—Stop a little. Let us see something
more into it.

The witness was then re-examined by Mr. CAmPistrx,
in order to show that the defendant had recognised the deed
-titer the alterations and erasures had been made; he stated
that he had had repeated conversations with the defendant
relative to the deed, and he had no doubt, from all the cir-
cumstance's that the defendant knew of the alterations,
out from the distance of time (the deed being dated in
1824) lie could not relate the details of any one of those
..onversations, nor any specific recognition of the deed sub-
sequent to the alterations.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that he was here compelled to
admit that be could not proceed upon the deed, and he
svouli therefore proceed upon the demand tot goods sold
and delivered.

S ime evidence was then tendered to prove the
!elivery of boots and shoes to the defendant ; and at leng,ll
t ts as agreed to refer the pl rintiff's den&and and the de—
, ndant's ,et-off to an arbitrati•r.

The Jury then found a nominal verdict, subj,Tt to a
n-ference.

BURGESS V. BU RN EY.

This was an action by the plaintiff, an attorney, aizairst
he defendant, to recover 61. Bs. 2ii., fir professional ser.
vices, and Si. for money ►ent._The Jory found a verdict
~or the plaintiff for 9/. 8.. 2d.

HURRY V. RICKMAN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. STEERS appeared for the
phintiff . _

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a
b deher, to ree'ver from the defendants, Edmund Rickman
rod Richard Sudcliffe. the value o• a great coat. The
alaititiff on the 16th of December last sent a great coat to
I.lr. &Achell, a tailor, of No. 11, Shepherd's-market, to
to altered in the sleeves. During that dry the defendant
Sudcliffe, who was a broker, distrained on Satchell's
;nods for arrears of rent due to Mr. Rickman, are other
lefendant, and among the goods which were taken away
was the great coat belonging to the plaintiff. Sud-
•kffe was told that the great coat did not belong to
•:atchell. but to a customer ; but he insisted on taking it,
old both he and Mr. Rickman had, tilt .•oogti several times
mplied to, refused to return it. Mr. Campbell having
oated those circumstances Paid that, in point of law, a
landlord could not derrain on goods placed in tiis treaty's
.aissession as an artificer ; for instance, the old law books
had 1,41 it d,ovn that " velvet ser,t to a tailor to make
hose therewith, was privileged while in the t•iiliir's hands."
So also xv.s corn sent to a mill to he ground ; it was pri-
vileged wh•le in the h•niis of the miller.
John Sitchell was railed, and proved the circumat owes
Al detailed by Mr. CAMPBELL, and also that the coat was
of the vale • of three guineiis.
Cries-ex .mined by Mr. Coatsee for the defendant Rick-
min (no Counsel apps .ring Inc Sudcliffe)—On applying
to Mr. Rickman, be said he had seen Sadcliffe, who said
he was perierrly justified in taking the coat, and therefore
fir. Rickman declined to have any thing to do with it.
11r. Rickman IS' as willing to take half of witness's rent
down, with security for the remainder. He, however,
knew nothing of the goods, not leaving had any return
from the broker. The plaintiff brought his action very
shortly after the goods were seized.

Mrs. Satchel, wife of the preceding witness, stated,
that she informed Sudcliffe that the coat belonged to a
customer, and she begged him to return it; she also told
him, if he would put any value upon it, she would obtain
it for him, to induce him to return it ; be refused to put
►ny price upon it.

William 'Wright, in the employ of tie plaintiff,_ proved
an application by the plaintiff to the defendant Rickman,
for the coat ; Mr. Rickman said he had nothing to do with
it, and referred the plaintiff to Mr. Sudcliffe.

Mr. COMYN addressed the Jury for Mr. Rickman,
and stated, that the question was, whether his client
had been guilty of seizing and converting the coat for
his own use. That his broker had seized it could not be
doubted. No harsh conduct appeared on the part of Mr.
Rickman, for it was in evidence that he was willing take
half his rent in cash, and security for the remail-,der, He
(Mr. Comyn) did not dispute that the la.;ct was as Mr.
Campbell had stated, via., that a coat s-alt to a tailor was
privileged against the claim of the tailor's landlord ; but
he contended that under the circumstances as detailed,
however they might affect S.,:olcliffe, they certainly did not
affect Mr. Rickman. Mr. Rickman, as landlord, only
authorized hie broker to seize all that he was authorized to
take, and if the broker exceeded his duty his principal
should not be made responsible for it.
His LORDSHIP recapitulated the evidence, and left it for
the Jury to decide whether the defendant had adopted the
act of his broker. The coat was certainly protected from
distraint, and, as regarded Sudeliffe, there could be rt.o
doubt the taking it was a conversion by him.

The Jury returned a verdict against both d'ziendantsa
damages 31. Se.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

POOLE V. room

This was a part .heard case, and was specially appointed
for argument to-day. At the sitting of the Court Mr.
StairguisoN proceeded with the case for the plaintiff.
The cause relates to a considerable property, from which
the plaintiff, Ann Poole, claims to be paid her dowry as
the widow of Thomas Poole. The question for argument
was, whether the marriage of Thomas and Ann Poole was
a legal one. From the evidence, as read, it appeared, that
in the month of February, 1816, Thomas Poole asked the
plaintiff whether she would take a walk with him,
when they proceeded together to the city of Chester.
Thomas Poole then procured a license, and they were
married, both being under age, and without the consent of
their parents or other legal gu,irdians. The parties livel
together till June in the same year, when they sepatated,
or rather the husband went off and left his wife; in conse-
quence of her not being an honest woman, he allegine that
she was formerly in the keeping of a coachman. Thomas
Poole died in November, 1817, possessed of property, and
the defendants are the persons to w4.ont that property was
devised. Daring the period from June, 1316, to Nov.
1917, the husband denied the validity of the marriage,
and a grew many letters were read to prove thiit fact.
.Jr. StmeraNsoN conten ied that the marriage was a
legal one, and that it was one of those which were made
legal by 'he statute sth George IV.
Mr. Ssiiutow followed shortly on the same side.
Mr. JARVIS for the defendants contended, that the case
could not come undec the statute of sth George IV., be-
cause that %tato, requited that the parties should have
lived together as man and wife, either up to the death of
one of them or to the passing of that Acr. Nasty, in this
case, the parties lived together as man and wife only from
Ft binary till June, and till November in the neat ear it
was evidence that they had never met. It was a'so
strongly proved, that dui ing the whole of that time the
husband constantly repudiated the marriage. This, be
consi Jered, would prevent it from coming under that Act.
Lovrr; wasaddressing their Lordships on the same
side when our reporter left.

WINTER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT.

(Before Mr. JustTceAinErtso;;;dr-ir. Justice PATTESON.)
H
SussEX—Saturday, Dt SO,
pon-ThaERIFORDSHIRE Natoji.2Bwe,s.
SURREY—Monday, at Hertford.
ESSEN—Wednesday, N0v..30, at Chelmsford.
KENT—Monday, Dec. 5, at Maidstone.
Dec. 10, at Kingston-u rnes.

DIED.—At Banff, on the 9th instant, MARY
the wife of RALPH COMPTON NISBET, Esq., aged 33
years.
The Gazelle of last night contains notices
fir application in the next Session of Parliament for the
following Acts :__For making a railway from London to
Greenwich, to commence near the sow. end of London.
bridge; for making a railway from London to Birming-
ham, commencing at Maiden-lane. Battle, bridge ; for
making a similar communication between Landon and
Southampton, commencing It Lambeth ; and for ,•mov-
ing the Fleet Prison to a site opposite the New Betblent
Hospital in St. George's-Fields.