The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-11 00:00:00

MONDAY, AUGUST l 1823.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CTIANCERY, AUGUST J.
MR. HAY D'ON'S PICTURE.

lit U. BEAUMONT t+,ALLNUTT.
In toil case an injunction had been granted by the Vice.
Chancellor to restrain the defendant from selling, or otherwise
parting with, or mutilating a-picture painted by. Mr. ilaydon.
the picture in .question was, the celebrated painting of Mac-
beth, of which Sir G. Mauna:nit had been the purchaser, and
had since lent it to Mr. Haydn, for the purpose of being ex-
hibited, with the rest of that gentleman's works, in a gallery
belonging to the defendant. blr..Haydon, from embarrass.
ment, being unable to pay his rent, the defendant levied a dis-
tress upon the pictures, and was about to put the present
picture with some Others up to auction, when he entered into
an agreement with Mr. Haydon, by which the luttet was per-
mitted to remove some of the pictures' to Scotland to be exhi..
bited at Glasgow and other places, upon an undertaking to re-
mit a certain sum to Mr. Alinutt out of the profits of such eit.
hibition. As a security for the remainder of the debt, a war-
rant of attorney to confess judgment was executed, and the re-
mainder of the pictures, including the Afactiah, were left in the
_custody- of Mr. Alinutt ; and in order to restrain that gentleman
from selling or. otherwise disposing of it, the plaintuf applied
for an injunction and the bill prayed thirthd picture might be
deposited in the hands of the Alatter; The Vice-Chancellor
granted the injunction, and directed that the picture should, in
the interim, be deposited for security in the hands of the Master.
But a doubt subsequently arising as to whether the Master
could receive the picture, on account of its size, his Honour di.
rected that it should be deposited in the hands of Sir G. 'Beau-
mont, with an undertaking on his part to preserve it in its pre-
sent state, and *abject to. the order of the Court as to its future
'When the Lout) CIIANCELLO it had taken his seat this day,
Mi. Suoutii briefly adverted to the Case, and said that the
defendant thought it hard that the picture should be taken out of
hispossesSion and delivered over to the custody of. Sir G. Beau-
mont, the claim of the latter not being fully estlolished. He
therefore, with his Lordship's permission, would give notice,
that before the closing of the present sittings, lie should move
for his Lordship's decision as to
,the person with whom the
Custody of, the picture should remain, until his Lordship sat
again.

VICE:CHANCELLOR'S COURT, A voner 9.
DON JUAN. •
tw) Draw( v. utropai.E.
Mr. WAKEFIELD said, that since he had 'Warmed the
Court yesterday, he had looked into several Autheeities, and
had found eases which he thought bore materially upon the
presentquestion; The first of these cases was Eiirbee v.
Jones," 4 Espinasse, 95. The Learned Judge who decided
that case gave his opinion, that with respect to prints merely
published for ridicule, the pleititillit could recover damages;
but if these prints were immoral or obscene, or libellous on in..
&victuals, and for which the plaintiff might be made criminally
answerable, no property would be allowed. The next case
which he had discovered wee " Gale and Iletty," 2 Starkey,
107,, and there the smile doctrine was held by Lord Ellenbo-
rough. In 2 Campbell, 511, there was a case of " .Dubois and
Beresford," where Lora Ellentiorough said, the the mateliel.
question was as to the value set upon the article; if' it was li-
bellous, the law could not consider it valuable. In 4 Camp-
bell, 29, there was a case or"' ‘Hyne.and ..
Here Mr.
Baron Barrow had decided,' thst timing called." Abraham
Newland" could not' receive the protect* of the Court. lithe
composition, hie Lordship said, wits set4ross as to affect public
Morale, the •Court could give no protection, nor Would a court
of equity grant an injunction. These were all the cases
which he had been able to find on this question, and he thought
they supported the argument which he bad the honour of
submitting to the COUrt yesterday, vie. that unless the work was
actually libellousea Court of Law would not refuse damages,
and a Court of Equity, eousequently, would not refuse its pro-
tection. He apprehended that the principhee laid down by the
Lord Chancellor in " Lawrence anti Smith," and "'Murray
and Verbose," mentioned to the Court yesterday, *ere the
same as those given in the case he had now cited.
The Vic”-Ctrtswcut.t.ott said, that as this was the last
opportunity he should have previous to the holplays of deciding
this case, he was anxious to give his final opinion upon is. lie
apprehended that it turned upon this clear principle—that in
the prtnection of literary property, a Court of Equity followed
a Court of Law.
ever, of certain exception*. 11''hLaw would grant u reparation byerever, therefore, a Court' of
This was the general rule, admitting, how-
workethere, as a generel Principle Court of Equity world
damagee for the piracy of a
grant a more perfect remedy to prevent a further injury of the
property. Ii here, on the contrary, a Court of Law would re-
*Use a- reparation by &Inheres; it necessarily followed that a
Court of Equity must withhold its ipjunction. It appeared
that the_
had
upon which Court of law acted hne these
cases had not been very solemnly decided. The eases
hod been referred to by the lieeened
Coansel wee principally
mu, prins decisions, upon which, the same reliance' could nee be
piaccal tie upon a solemn decision by the Judgeei
Ge nsider-
mg,
.therefore, the whole of this cale, lie thought the safer
eout% would be,' that as this work now in question
.was chal-
lenged to be °Noel) a charaher as thug it would not receive the
protection of a Court of Lew, that a pia at taw should be
directed to obtain the vertliat of a Jure: lie would, therefore,
dissolve the injunction uteiti the tome that the defendant
should keep an account of , the profits of the Sale of the work,
end thus atfordingeo Lord Byron areoppotttmity of proceeding
At lityl to. recover damages. It Lord Byron succeeded in his
PittiOlt, his lionotit thought A would follow' that he would be
entitled' to the protection of this Court by injunction.
.
MY. Weeextemeei rernifided the Court, that the defenant
was not in the most affluent circumstances. He did not kni)te
whether this' consideration would hive any weight with the
Court in resPect to the order 4t had given.
The VICE-CUANCELLOPI thought that it made no difference.
—lnjunction dissolved.
THE COBURG THEATRE.
e;zsiteitat, s r. JOH* r. CII.OBBCP.
Mr. WA:KEFIELD sail lie NO let` this case to move to die_
solve fifiinjunction which had been obtaineefto restrain Air:
trlkinatall from selling a glass curtain, part of the decorations
of the Coherg Theatie. The answer of the defendant, upon
Which he founded ibis application to dissolve the injunction,
set forth the following facts : On the .lit of Pehruary,
1021, a security was given to Generel St.. John, by which
he was to be paid the aunt of 521/. a year out of the profits of
the theatre. There wee'ir .subsequent security given to a Mr.
Jackson,. dated November, 11122, for the payment of 501.4.
Air. Arktmtall was apPointett trustee by Air. Jackson under the
tfecond wail), and in February, 1823, became the manage*, of
the theatre. The glass.curtain now in question was nut pur-
chased until many months idler the seeurity given to General.
St. John. That security was.dftted in Fehruttry, 11122, and the
curtain waif not 'purchased until December in the &Ante year.
The answer further stated, that the affairs of the theatre could
not be conduhed with profit to the proprietor* unless Air.
kinstalt was allowed tdproceed in the sale Of the cumin. Aer.
Arkinstall had not received a single farthing of the profits of
the concern for his own purposes, but had invariably paid them
over to the treasurer, and by him they had been applied to the
mans stet of the theatre. !hider 'hese circumstances, it Was
Moved that, the injunction be diSsolvetel.
The VIVEACHANCELinit asked any 6ent'vtruol aPpeareti
twhaespnii4otn,
to support the injunction ?
Mr. LOVAT said he appeared at Ccitin'el." Gen. St. Jelin.
er of control over
The Vrete-Ctlaeleretean observed, that this cage bed ttirri-
saetilecufotrtnthbeedestsuchruactiohne obrianotp
tiff, but it appeared to be necessary hi• the course of tne manatee-
ment of the concern. efi
Trtsyt,saltqw)pea4skaailieicedThhi,7
LOVA,T thought:the true qtletnien was, WAle.,,A'er General
St. John hatniuteunder hie security, a Ir
the.whole prelperty ? The turtain inluest op was ie.fact n
port
of the eubstuce. of General St. John *s haunt
.t.was acleatrt
a substantial,dna the best, •psitt of :tie p %Mit security;
The curtain was extremely valuable, and cast a sum ep 2,0001. .
The VteE-CitaNczieou °Meted, that •the mit*, was
inn pet tip prior to the commencement et' elenerel St. John's
security.
Lovaer did net see any such statemenv contained in the.
tstlbteCT-
hir. 11,TAityttrtressid at 1 • s t
werettePreo Y la ed -that. General,
644 John's security cottemenced in'Febstlasei, . and that the,
ctuesin was not purchased untifitecembet,lB22.
, _The ,VICReCtiMICE.II,I.OIt IWPO4de irrmus inlet Idelietivitenun„i• •
set tibeuki attend to thopeilleiPle to laN CD rroddn•~thi
Such scenery and theatrical decorations, of which the curtain
formed a part, must be suited to the public taste, and n," be

necessarily the subject of continual change, according to the
direction of the manager of the concern.
Mr. Lovitt thought the Court ought to consider whether
this was such a sale as was warranted by the due management
of the concern.

The VIOE-CIIANCELLOII. agreed that that ought to be the
consideration of the: Court, and on that point he mast be corn-
plod,' satisfied before he ventured to dissolve,the injunction.
Mr. WAKE? tELD said it was expressly sworn by a scientific
man who had examined this curtain, that if it had continued up
for one week longer, it would have endangered the lives both
of the rrerformcrs and the audience. Public curiosity had
ceased, and no good reason'could be assigned fur keeping up
the curtain. •

The tricE.OliAXcritott said, this was a sectitity giien
upon the theatre, its scenes, dresses., and other decaationi.—
These decorations were necessarily subject to change to suit. the
public taste,.and for this purpose the curtain had been removed.
Although the Court would by no means allow any thing like
destruction of property, yet it would sanction a prudent cuange
of scenery and decorations. He Was of opinion that the re.
moval of the curtain was such an act of prudent .Management,
and therefore ordered the injunction to be disaolveti.--Injunc.
tion dissolved.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

TliE 11013FIElt 'a AT LAMBE= P.I.I.ACC.

UNION fiAt.t..—Mr. A I. LE N, the Magistrate of this Office,
proceeded. on Saturday morning m person, accompanied by
Mr: Staples, the Clerk, and Glannon and Gill, the officers- to
investigate more minutely the circumstances attending the ;ob.
bery in Lambeth Palace. The course of the robbers was ttis.
tinctly traced, and the various acts of destruction which they
had committed in their.pursuit of plunder carefully examined.
All led to the conclusion—first, that the parties engaged were
intimately acquainted with the premises ; and next, that their
object was the attainment of a large and valuable booti, for
all trifling articles of ornament and utility, were treated with
indifference, and lay strewed about the floors as not worth
notice. • Mrs. Sutton, to whom notice of the occurrence had
been sent to her house at lladdington, arrived at the Palace,
on Friday afternoon, and after a careful review of the pro-
perty, was of opinion that nothing had been removed of any
great value; indeed it was supposed that the loss, indepen-
dent of the injury done to the various depositdries which the
thieves had forced and destroyed, did not exceed five pounds.
It is a singular but fortunate eircmnstance that the only
two presses which contained any thing of importance, at
least in the estimate of such persons as were engaged in the
robbery, escaped attack. One of these contained a quantity
of rich old family plate, and the other the dress worn by the
Archbishop of Canterbur7 at the late Coronation of his Ma;
jesty:as well as several Court-dresses belonging to the female
brancites of the family. The dress of the Archbishop was very
expensively decorated, although possessing, perhaps, more of
imaginary than intrinsic value. Nothing transpired in the
course of the inquiry which afforded the slightest clue to the
offenders ; but it is anticipated that the vigilance and expe.
rience of the officers will ultimately lead to detection.—Mrs.
Sutton returned to Iladdington on Friday,
,evening.—Several
inquiries have been made at the Palace by persons of rant,
and, the neighbourlwed still continues in a state of agitation.
.W 0n an IP,ST It E E Ait st v.— TV/a. Betiartt, con-
stable of St. Luke's parish, appeared, on Saturday, before Sa-
muel-Twyford and 111ilward,:Eatirs., to answer the o an.
plaint cif tiergeant-Major Best, of the London Recruiting
met department, for unlawfully refusing to supply billets to
recruits.

Complainant stated, that yesterday he marched from
mlntter to St. Luke's, in charge of seven recruits, by a mute
signed by a Lieutenant-Colonel Macdonald. On inquiry he
found, that the defendant *as a constable, residing in White•
cross-street, and immediately applied for seven billets, which
defendant refused, and insulted complainant o much that se.
veral hundred' persons gathered together: The defendant de.
mantled of complainant no parade his:men before his door,. and
exhibit their hands, as the (defendant) much doubted but the
whole was a fratta upon, the parish. COMplainant finding .uo
explanation wonld satisfy the defendant, he returned agatn to.
,the High Conslable (.'. r. Serie), but was unable to see that'
gentleman, and complainant had no other remedy than to lodge
his complaint at this office, when %%Inn, the officer, procured"
billets for coinplainant and his party.
Several of the recruits corroborated the above statement, and
added, that the defendant was"much disguised with liquor, and
' very abusive. •
Defendant,' in reply, pindtively denied bring the least intoxi-,
rated—aiiti that 111 r. Serie bad mohibited him front giving till)
billetit; and, in consequence of the parish having been once?'
imposed upon by a party ofmarines, he directed the complidnant
to the Ifigh Constable.
Mr. Tvrrtonn observed, that the complainant had acted
,with great propriety in not allowing
,his party, after a dark-
March, to be without their quarters ;* but he did not Conceive
that the defendant came exactly within the Act, which states,
that " any constable, &c. refusing to supply'. billets to'hiit Ma.
jesty's troops, upon proper notice, shall be liable to a', penalty,
not exceeding Al, or less than 41)5." lied the cot:11)61mi
applied a seetaul ante, and been refused, defendant would lease
certainly been liable to punishment t• but the complainant not
doing so, he .should dismiss the complaint with cautioning the
defendant in future to Arvin a Enure becoming tna4ner to any
marching party that niay require quarters in his parish.