The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CITANCERY, MAn'ex 20. •
CHATFIELD to.'3IOTT AND ANOTHER.
3lr. FIoUNE moved for an injunction to restrain the defend-
ants, R. Mott, and J. C. %lott, from negociatihg or drawing'
any bills on account of the partnership, receiving any debta, or
disposing of the stock. The defendants having in 1810 received
a patent for an improved pianoforte, called the " Stistenente"
,pianoforte, the plaintiff entered into partnership with them for
21 years. lfwas agreed by the articles executed between them,
that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant R. Mott, a sum
of 1,7371., and to the other defendant 500 guineas, and to ad_
vance to the business a e4ital of 2,0001, J. C. Mott was also
to bring in capital, audio iny his brother a premium of 1,000
guineas, if the profits sh6uld amount to 20,000/. in five years.
—The plaintiff performed'his part of the agreement; but it
turned out that the business, from which so much was expect-
ed, yielded no profit at all; and the plaintiff received nothing
for the money he advanced, whilst the defendants had thought
proper to take 600/. a-year each from the concern.
The Court directed notice to be served on the other side, the
injunction to issue in the iiiean time. •

COVENT-GARDEN iIIEATRE.—CONST V. HARRIS.
Mr. lIEALD applied to his Lordship for leave for Mr. Ro-
bertson to be tendered to 'the Master as a fit per Son to be ap-
pointed'as receiver in this ease, which could not at present be
done, in consequence of the plaintiff having, made him a party,
when amending his Bill, six days after his (Mr. Robertson's)
name had been carried in to the Master by the lessees.
II
ae ,
is Lordship could not decide without hearing both parties ;
namebut, h
ewatsoipbcelpinreodpotsoedt.hink he ought to allow
Robertson'slafcl

FRAY.
Counsel were further heard in this case at some length ; after
which his Lordship decided that the issues ought`not to go, as
at present directed.

BEAUMONT V. ALLNUT.
Mr. frAN.T applied &wan order, directing the defendant, John
.Allnut, to pay over to the plaintiff, Sir George Beaumont, the
sum of 201., and also to pay the costs of this application. Sir
George having purchased a valuable picture of Mr. Haydon,
afterwards lent it to that artist, for the purpose of being exhi-
bited by him in the British Gallery, Pall-mall, which he rented
of the defendant. The'ren't falling into arrear,, the defendant
distrained, and amongst others the picture in question was seiz.
ed. An arrangement, hoWever, was made between Mr. Haydon
which it was agreed that the picture shoUld
for the rent with the latter. ‘II.G. Beau-
iranenomdnattihn n
beeidse afe pledgen
ngndapnat' by
party to this agreement, filed a bill in Chaneery
to compel the defendant to deliver him up his picture; and the
Vice-Chancellor decreed that the picture should be so delivered
up. This decree was appealed from to the Lord. Chancellor, who
made an interlocutory order, that upon Sir "George's paying
LW/. (the sum for which the picture was a security) into Court,
it should be delivered up toliim. He accordingly paid the money,
and sent to demand the picture; but a Mr. Pinny,who took the
gallery after Mr. Haydon, refused to give it up without an order
from Mr. Allnut, or payment of 201., the cost of the picture's
standing in the gallery. Sir George, therefore, served the de-
fendant with notice, that if be did not give Mr. Pinny an order
to give up the picture, he would pay him the 20/., and then
move the Lord Chancellor for an order upon him (the defend-
ant) to refund the money, and pay the costs of the appplication.
Accordingly, having been oblige(' to pay the 20/1. before he re-
ceived the picture, the plaintifrmade the present application,
contending that the defendant had been guilty of a breach of
the Lord Chancellor's order, for the delivery up of the picture.
Mr. Su tiDEN, for the defendant, argued that this application
was informal, the proper course for the plaintiff to have adopted
being to enforce the order of the Court. But if Sir Cieptge
Beaumont chose to pay 201.; or 2,0001. for the use of his gal-
lery, the defendant had nothing to do 'with that ; and could
not therefore be said to have committed a breach of the order.
At all events, there was no occasion for the present hasty ap-
plication, as the question might be disposed of at the hearing of
the cause.

Mr. Mu,' replied.
The LOUD CHANCELLOR.—If I say nothing to the con-
trary when 1 come into Court on Tuesday morning, cake your
order : but 1 have some little difficulty. •
Mr. SuoDEN—Does your Lordsship'conceive that they have
a right to their motion in point of form
' The 14011 P CIIANcELLon..--;-That is; my only difficulty, as
to their right in point of forin ; I have none whatever as to their
right in point of substance.