The Sun.
London, England, 1814-12-19 00:00:00

MURDER.

• TRIAL AT CEYLON.--"Ott the. 15th of February
tame on before the Supreme COttrt of Ceylon'the
tri4l of Serjeant Williants;• the,l9th 'regiment,
for the murder Of Elizabeth, his wife, by throw-
ing a knife at her on the evening Of Sunday, the
16th of January, which struck her on .her left
side, and occasioned her death a fe,v days after.
It appeared in evidence; that atter the prisoner
Irad, committed the act 'he expressed his peni-
tence, and endeavoured to prevail. on his wife
to say that she came by the. mound ' through
accident. ; but, /befOre she died, she told • the
truth, A Airs. Lambert ,deposed, that, the pri-
soner cam, to hi r, at Lieut.:Bagrut's about half 7,
past 7 o'clock on Monday morning, and requested
her to come over to his wife, for he believed that
she had dmie for herself by falling over.a bucket with
some knives and forks in her hand. The witness
soon alter went over-; she saw the prisoner la-
menting over his. wife. The prisoner left the
room. and witness seated herself in the chair he
had quitetl. Atter he was. gone; the deceased
said, " it is not as.he represented it : he hurled
the 'knife aurae." The witness said, " Lord bless
rue, what cont.,' he do it for Mrs. W. replied, that
she had genic for some bread on the Sunday even-
ing, and that he,, thinking she had been out too
long, accused her of having been with some Officer.
The prisoner returned, and she said no mote. • He'
500 after anis lett the room again, and she the,
evq,,,sted witness ,pot to tneritiou that he had done
it, tit' atter she was dead. The whole of the evi-
dence be ng gone through, and the prisoner hav•
ing little to say in his diteliee, the Jury retired,
and, after being out nearly two hours au .d a half,
returned with a verdict of Guilty of Culpable Ho-
?nit*. The prisoner was sentenced.to.be trans-
ported to New South Wales fof.the remainder bf
kis natural life.

Ler, INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERT, DEC. 17.
THE PUBLIC THEATRES.

MORRIS V. KIMBLE AND HARRIS.

The • Judgment of the Court- was finally pro.
on,iced in the following form

LORD CHANCELLOR -2Fliere were two motions
respecting the dispute between the. Proprietors of
the little Theatre in the Haymarket and the Pro-
prietors of the great-Theatre in Covent-garden ;
the one was to ili,sOlve an injunction against the
Proprietors of Coveot-gardeu Theatre, with re-
ference to four dramatic pieces—The Agreeable
Surprise, Village Lawyer, We Fly by Night, and
X. K. Z.—lt was ao injunction wiii-li prevented
the. Proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, men
and women, and George Colman, Esq. from per-
forming, or causing to ,be performed, the pieces I
have mentioned, or any other of the dramatic
pieces of G. Coftwom . The injunction was moved
tor after •it had happened that . under particular
cireumstances one of these pieces, The Agreeable
Surprise, had been performed at Covent-garden
Theatre. The Proprietors of Covent-garden
Theatre, or such Of them as attend, seem to
have had an opinion that 'the injuoctiou did not
prevent their performing The Agreeable Surprise;
and having advertised it representation, the
interposition of those who thought themselves
called upon to interpose was not in time to pre-
vent its. being a serioas inconvenience,' not
,to play
that part of the
.oerformance so announced. ri.he.
Proprietors of Covetit-garden Theatre seem- to
,•••-: 41,....1,50i Lim; - firisttlotAl.n Itiii not extend to
that entertainment, ai_ it was .not mentioned in
the proliihrforypart of the writ of injunction, and.
, that they. had a right to perform it by reason of
' its iincientiv and the fact of its having been per-
formed at other Theatres. I. trail still of opinion
1 drat attending to the whole of the writ of it-ditt:3-
; tiOn, it clearly extends to prevent the perform-
' ance of the tour compositions, which, are all spe-
cifically mentioned in -the body of ;the writ, and
that the Word-," hcreinbefore mentioned" clearly
apply to them all. The, material question was to
have that point settled There was another com-
tlaint. It was stated, that the general words
i which were supposed to Coinprehend all that Mr.
Colman had- cotnposed, or ever should compose,
were words which were Much too general in a writ
of injunction, 1 atn'of opinion, that with respect
to every one of the parties hut Mr. Colman, they
are so—for how are the Proprietors of Covent-
garden Theatre to he acquainted with the fact,
that the new-pieces presented to them are not the
or idoctions of the persons who present them, but
are the fruits of the genius of Mr. Colman. 1 think
Ii would be too much to, plate the Proprietors of
Covent-garden Theatre tinder the harrow of a writ
of injunction, so general in its terms, and there:-
fere if a case arises respecting any other Composi-
tion made the subject of dramatic representation,
in violation of the rights of the Proprietors of
the Haymarket Theatre, that case must be stated,
and a fresh writ of injunction piayed for.--
To a certain extent, diet), toe motiou for dis-
solving the injunction has: succeeded. On the
other hand, a mUtion• was made by Mr. Morris,
not meaning that it should succeed in time terms
of it, but making, use of the only terms by
which he conctied he could obtain what under
his agreement.with Mt.-Colman, he thought he
had. a right to as .Proprietor of the Haymarket
'lleaire. His motion was, thartwo Gentlemen,
Mr. Harr s and Mr. Kemble, s;otil he committed
'to the Fleet Prison, for having ,violated the In-
jimetion, by performing the entertainment called
The Agreeable Surprise. As to M.r. Harris, he
may be considered aslhaving given directions for
the performance, but in saying this, :I am quite
sure.lie-had -no idea of violating, or meant to vio-
late the Injunction. As 'to Mr. Kernble, there
was t peri(nrn• InterpOsition of
,his. 1 do not
to;Hx, ,• i I co.k 1 am speaking ,correctly, that
it not being one m.• his awn nights, he even koew
.The .Ireeaile Surprise was to be performed. But
atten .mg, to ,11, distinction between the words
" pertormipg," and '' caosiog to
,be performed,"
I,apprehend that it after this injunction, the Pro-
prietors of Covent-garden Theatreoilace the per-
formances under the int-wag-meat of Mr. Thomas
Harris, or Mr. Henry Harris, and.they select the
property of tie Haylliarkt - heatre for repre-
sentatioh, they must he considered as " causing"
these thingS to he performed.—Mr. Hart makes
this objection, He sap, this is a motion to-commit
for performing, awl not for causing to be per-
formed, and he says that it he had had notice of
the motion in this form, he 511 0 , 'lld have had a de-
fence.' This seemed to he- a surprise, lama whe-
ther an agreeable:one or not, I will not undertake
to say. The real queetiop is, whether these
words, " causing to he performed," are words
that mean alifferent acts; or _tv-kether they are
words of tautology ; I am dot afraid of incurring
the censure of the world, when I say, that this
.Court is pretty much in the habit of using words
of tautology, and ' therefore perfectly capable of
judging what are
.so. I think I can dispose of
this satisfactdrily When_you look at au injunt-
ti n that prevents you (rout '' perforMing, or
-causing to be performed," certain pieces, in order
to' determine whether it means two distiuct acts,
or the same, you must look to the perons who are
to perform, and what is the act they are to per-
form,- or cause to be performed. I apprehend it
is impossible, in the fair sense of- the word, to
say that Mr. Harris, or Mr. Kenible, or any other
Proprietors who 'have no theatrical character, can
perform The Agreeable Surprise. Certain indivi-
duals may perform ceitain.parts, but how any one
,person can violate. an Injunction by performing
The Agreeable Surprise, 1 cannot conjecture. I
remember to have seen a play-bill, in which it
was announced, that Mr. Bannister, a Gentleman
tof a verr versatile genius, was to perfortn every
:part. Mr. Bannister might do so, but Ida not
isee how Mr. Harris or Mrs. Anne Somebody and
•the: other Proptietors can, be restrained in any
.other sense than in causing ..,0 be performed. I
null the more confirmed in this, because in the af-
fidavits of Mr. Harris and Mr. Kemple, they state
-that in performing The Agreeable SUrprise, which
they adinit they did not mean to violate any in-
junction, there maybe cases to which doing and
causing a thing to done niay- have a different
meaning - ? but J. think, recollecting who the per-

sons are, and the thing to be. done that these,
words are chargeable with tautology. The \great
question is respecting these four .fardes. They
certainly are not to be acted unless the injunction
is dissolved. On the first motion, the injunction
I have reformed ; as to the Tatter there has- been
a violation of the injunction, bnt withOut.any in-
tention to violate, it, and .therefore the. best way
of settling this dispute, and of restoring harmony
betWeett the two theatres, is to say that there
shall be no costs on either'side.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 17.

SMITH, PAY NEB AND . smmj, MURCOTT AND

OTHERS.

In this action the plaintiffs, whOare Bankers in
London:: sought to recover the amount of a forged
bill of exchange, drawn by a person of the name
.qf Temple upon Mr. Evans, a. navy agent, and
made payable at the praintiffs' banking-house.
The bill in question was indorsed to, the defen-
dants, and a. valuable. consideration given fOr it
by them at their Bank in Tunbrifte. They after-
wards sent it for payment to. the plaintiffs, by
whom it was paid. The forgery being discovered,
and the plaintiffs demanded back the MOney they
had paid. The defendants resisted the demand,
and hence arose the present action,
The Lord CHIEF JuSiltE, considering "the
questiou too difficult to be then decided,•recom:
mended that the facts might be formed into a case,
and argued hereafter. This was agreed to, and a
verdict was taken subject to a case.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.