The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

COVENT-GARDEN TIiEAT E.-CONST V. HARRIS.

Mr. lianT resumed his argument against the motion for in-
structions to be given by the Court to the receiver to make the
proper disbursements for the current and nightly expences of
the theatre.

Mr. HEALD was heard in reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then expatiated upon the diffi-
culty of the Court giving the directions which were now
sought. He renewed many of his former remarks upon the
force of the partnership deed of 1812, under which the
plaintiff now came before the Court, and the responsi-
bility which remained with the contracting parties of the
existing lease to fulfil the conditions of that deed, by pay-
ing off the incumbrance through the agency of a common re-
ceiver. His Lordship also renewedhis complaints of the diffi-
culty of this Court uadertaking to Manage a theatre. There
might be judges who had discrimination for those matters—he
had none. Ile could take no other course than that of send-
ing it to the Master, who in all probability must consult the
same parties as before' to know what expenses ought to be al-
lowed. Now this had already been done ; directions had been
given by the parties under which the treasurer or receiver
had been acting ; and that with the approbation of the Master,
upon his accounts up to a certain period. if any objection were
Made to those orders by any party, that was another question ;
but that question ought to come before hitn in the shape of
exceptions. In what he had formerly said, as to appropriating
the funds, rents, or profits to the incumbrances, he wished to •
be more clearly understood. There could be no doubt of the
force of the steed of 1812 in that appropriation. But in saying
that, he slid not mean to go so far as to imply that cx necessi-
tate, any or all of the new profits which might be made must
be immediately applied to the discharge of ancient debts. So far
was that from being his opinion, that if he were compelled to
make an order in this case, the only order he could make would
be to direct that the exigent expenditure for employing the the-
atre should be allowed, and that die surplus should be paid into
the Court to abide the division under the covenanters of the deed
of 1812, upon the final decision of the cause. If that were to be
done, then he must also take such methods as were available to
him to ascertain the amount of the surplus over the nightly and
current expence to be so paid in. That would be his duty as
a judge, if he were pressed to give any directions. Because
he could only do in this case that which he would be bound to
do in any other partnership case. But, as a man, he could not
but feel, that instead of a surplus this property might be over_
hung with debts, which would make such an order wholly
superfluous, if not ruinous. Sir W. Grant had done a bold
thing with a theatre 'similarly circumstanced. He found that
the parties would come to no agreement, and that he had not
the power of bringing them to any satisfactory conclusion. He
ordered a sale of the theatre, and did it upon a sound principle.
" There are interests to be sustained connected with this pro-
perty which must be neglected so long as the parties remain at
variance. If you cannot come to such an accommodation as
will allow those interests to be protected, must _have the the-
atre disposed of to other parties, who will by that step be left
sufficiently free to do what is proper. He must be allowed to
any once more—though he had frequently expressed his opinion
of it before—that the proprietors of this or any other theatre
would do well to agree with each other out of doors. If they
persisted in coming to this Court to settle all their dsagree-
ments, they'did it with the prospect directly before them of
running their joint property into absolute ruin. It' they per-
sisted in requiring the order of the Court, he must give that
order which he before mentioned. He hoped that they would
think better of it ; and therefore he would give them till Thurs-
day morning to consult.
After a few sentences from each of the Counsel, chiefly urged
in apologizing for their several clients troubling the Court, the'
question stands adjourned till Thursday.