The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-26 00:00:00

The Vict-CitasicELion said he had given leave to file the
supplemental bill, because the case now made out was not then
disclosed to him. The Marquis of Donegal's affidavit made in
objection to filingthe supplemental bill having stated no other
fact than that a suit for the Caine debentures by the same par-
ties was then pending in Ireland.' A pending suit in a foreign,
jurisdiction could never be a ground for refusing to entertain a
claim in this country, though the judgment by such a juristlic-
tien might; but had all the facts stated in Lord Donegal's
answer in Ireland 'e3ezi brought before the Court, it certainly
would not have allowed the supplemental bill to be filed. The
difficulty now was, whether the present Plaintiffs having ob.
tamed leave to file the present supplemental bill, and thereby'
place themselves in the situation of the original Plaintiflii, the
Court was not bound to proceed with the cause?
Mr. BELL, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that the Marquis
of Donegal, on coming of age, in the year 1799, found himself
involved in debt to a great amount, and, for the satisfaction of
his creditors, execute-di conveyance of his estate to trustees.,
with power to investigate the consideration which was received
for the several debts, and also to compound and arrange with
any of the creditors, and to grant assignable detentions to all
creditors who would undertake not to bring any suits in Lai or
, equity against LordDonegal for their claims—no debentures to
he given without Lord D. being a party to it. It appeared in
the cause, that Mr. John King, at the time that the Trustees
were appointed, was a, holder of the Marquis of D.'s securities
for 40,0001., which claims were all by compromise satisfied by
debentures for 20,0001. The Master's report in 1803 was con:
firmed nisi, though not absolutely, and no objeetion was made
to it. The Marquis of. Donegal was then residing in Ireland,
where he continued till 1807, when he came to this country,
and a supplemental bill' was Immediately filed against him, to
which he answered that a suit was then pending in Ireland for
the same debentures, by the same parties, the representatives
of th© sald'HenrY Jones; to which he had answered. A decree
was pronounced in that. cause, by which the trusts of the deed
were confirmed against the defendant. lie did not in his an-
swer in thatcause make any Objection to the Master's report
of 1803, and the Court would not, at the end of sixteen years,
allow him to make such objection.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that plaintiffs in that
cause had never come to the Court to have the Master's Report
confirmed absolutely ; hadehey done so, the Marquis of Done-
gal might then have made his objections.
Mr. BELL Koceeded.—ln the year 1818 the Marquis of Do-
negal compromised the original cause -by which means he ob.
tamed possession of documents, by which the consideration
given for many of the present debentures could be proved, and
now he made a defence which he did not make in the year
1807. He admits 'tilat the debutures assigned to Sir John
Ladd are valid securities, but says, as the plaintiffs have also
some that were assigned to John King, which he means to dis-
pute, therefore their bill should be dismissed, and they shOuld
not be allowed to derive any advantage from their suit. It was
argued that the plaintiff's were purchasers of contested deben-
tures that were made assignable by the defendant,' and those he
had chosen for his protection, and some of which were. not even
now contested by him.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR pronounced his decree as fol.
lows :—ln the year 1802, .4 person of the name of Jones filed a
bill in this Court, against the trustees of Lord Donegal, on be-
half of himself and all other creditors, to which Lord Donegal
was not a party, being then out of the jurisdiction. In the
progress of this suit, the Master made a report in favour of the
validity of the debentures, which report was partly confirmed
There was no mode within the power of this Court which
its order or receiver could benefit the creditors, the property be.
ing in Ireland. The repreientatives of the plaintiff; therefore,
commenced a suitin Ireland, which was terminated by the com.
promise in 1816 ; and in the year 1810 the present jilOitiffit in-
stituted a suit in Ireland for a part of the indentures they held,
and Lord Donegal, in his answer stated that the debentures held
by the plaintiff's were obtained by the original grantees on fraudu-
lent transactions. Messrs. Houlditch then came to this Court, and
prayed to be admitted to prosecute the suit tcommenced by
Jones, on behalf of himself and all other creditors. • It further
appeared that Lord Donegal made an affidavit against that tip.
pheation ; but that did not state any sufficient grounds to cause
the Court to depart from the established practice: Leave was
therefore given, and a supplemental bill was filed ; and Lord
Donegal states, in his answer, that in a suit brought by the
same plaintiffs in Ireland, he had charged fraud on the original
obtaining of the debentures, which fact was then in issue.
Had he made this statement in his affidavit, the Court would
not allow the supplemental bill to bellied; but having allowed.

THE KING V. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. GURNEY said, lie moved the rule for a criminal infor-
mation against Lleareßin Williams, proprietor of the Surrey
Theatre, anti understood the Coinnion Serjeant and other
'earned Friends Were ready to sitew'cause against the rule.
(The printer of the play-bill, Mr. Itoniney, of Lambeth, was
included in the application.)
Mr. Coaterosi SE 11.1.EAN T. in shewing cativo against the rtile,
said he had to refer to the affidavits of Mr. Penton, the attor-
ney of John Thitricll,' and of Thoniae the brother of John
Thurtell, which set forth, that having seen the play-bill an-
nouncing this performance, notice way given by them to the
proprietor Williams, desiring, not only that such might not be
represented, but alio their intention of applying. to this Court
for a criminal iiiforniadon, when the said 1,. Williams stated to
deponents, that it was too late to make the application as to
any alteration to be made in the performance that night, as it
would disappoint a crowded audience which was summoned by
their hand-bill e lint that after that night it should certainly be
discontinued, and the fact -appeatett;:that on that night the
house was particularly full.
Loan Cserxr JuslteE.—Airhy did not defendant promise
that it should not be performed even on that night ?
COMMON SXvJEANT.-13ccause, if the audience felt disap-
pointed, this would have created a riot.
LORD CHIEF JuSTICE.—No, because, it was his duty, and
he might have returned the money to every body.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT proceeded—the affidavit of de-
fendant 'stated; that front that night the performance had not
been repeated, and that having entered upon the exhibition of
such piece, it proceeded from discretion on the part of Mr.
Williams, who is a very young. man. lie further submitted to
their Lordships, its bong set forth in the affidavit of 31r. Fen-
ton, the ready manner in which .MreWilliatrin had consented
to withdraw the performance; 'and that lie had not •been dise
posed, as he promise-!!,' to repeat it any further ha 'consequence
of its being represented that it would have a material effect in
prejudicing the ends of impartial justice, which was by no
means anticipated.‘ Ile submitted, that although this was
stated to be the ground of 1)1r. Fentioo application, that Oen-
tleman himself hail, in a great ineasare, admitted, since the
end was now averted, that there was no longer cause of cam.
plaint, and therefore lie trusted their Lerdships would think it
sufficient to discharge the rale to 'how cause.
Mr. Ounxxv.—E cannot accede to that.
Mr. COMMON SE lIJE.INT proceeded.—Theaffidavits of Mr.
Fenton and Mr. Thomas Thurtell did not aver that the repre-
sentation of 'the murder of Weare on 'the Surrey stage was
connected with eircunistanees that had occurred, or had any
analogy to the evidence that was likely to be given on the
trial, but that they had reason to believe it was a correct re-
semblance of the facts, which had been detailed in the public
newspapers, relative to the said murder. T. Thurtell'it affidavit
further went to charge, that having recovered a 'considerable
sum of moneyfrom Mr. Beaumont, the 31anager of the County
Fire Office, which was the subject of an indictment against de-
ponent and others that such piece having; allusion to !din, also
tended to prejudice the ends of impartial justice, aierelated to
this deponent. That, upon seeing a copy of the handebill an-
nouncing the performence, he went to the said theatre, and there
found the mune of the *proprietor to be Llewellen Williams;
whereas he (Mr. Common Serjeant) was now instructed to state
that his name was not only Llewellen, but Llewellen Watkins
Williams, and that the said performance, entitled" « the GatnlN
ler*" had not been performed since the nth of November, inst.
Be admitted the announcement in the bill itself wee sufficient '
to bring the matter before their Lordships; but the averments
in the affidavits put in did not sufficiently connect the represen-
tation with the facts of the murder, but as being very nearly
resembling the circumstances of the E4tid reported murder .for
which the said John Thurtcll and others now stand fully corn-
mitted to Hertford gaol, to take their trial at the ensuing As-
sizes. With this exception, that the repieuetitation in the piece
exhibits one party less guilty at the ,expence of the others.
He contended it was not enough that it teas nearly resembling
what appeared in the newspaper*, but that the party should
haVe sworn that it nearly resembled the evidence which would
be given on the said trial. That it merely agreed with the de-
tails which had appeared in the Public Journals, in his opinion
lift the case greatly deficient ; and .the exhibition having been
stopped, he trusted there was no further cause of complaint.
Then these sifidavits went on to state, that in the said drama
intending, to
apprehended by
represent the said J. Thurtell in the act of being
the officer.; ofjustice, for the murder of the cle.
ceased Mr. Weare, at which the audience expressed great apt
plause and approbation, such representation thereby tending
greatly to prejudice the public maid, and to defeat the ends of
Impartial justice.

Lonn CHIEF JurricE--Thesflidavit states, the personi-
fication of one of the parties in the act of being seized by the
officers, and that party being now under commitment to take
his trial for the murder, at which the audience expressed great,
applause and
approbation, yet you hope here is not sufficient
/,'cenanunseottoremferakth yeatnhe r‘purleecedabseinit, doctrine, or authoritluto-for a criminal' information.
The Cosmos- SER.TrAI77-1 am sorry, my Lords, that I
that would
tolerate public exhibitions at Sort; Only lau mit there is
not sufficient in these affidavits to warrant the Court's! making
the rule absolute.
Air. IlmixwE I. t. followed on the same side. Ile could not
deny the fact as taken up by the Court, that,thie had a tendency
to prejudice a person about to be tried for a iiiippoied
crime, but that it was not sufficiently demonstrated by chose
affidavits that such representation was likely to affect.the Jitry
on the trial, so as to prejtidice the public mind against the ho.
cased. But it was sworn that siich was likely to prejudiceJOhn
Thurtell, lie admitted it waslikely to excite suspicion against
him, but that did not go so far as to presume. it would lead to
int
his
catlir'Clee sincetri,°L,tie Colilitr' would not be trial upon suspicion of
the t could ciily.conneastich lepepie4ta.