The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII—(This DAY.)
DAVIS V. ausscr.r. AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff in this case brought his action
against Russell, a carpenter, and South, a broker,
for an illegal and excessive distress put in upon
his goods for 27/. rent, alleged to be due to Rus-
sell. In, the levy, the defendants took away pro-
perty beyond the amount claimed, also the
plaintiff's working tools and his beds, although at
the time he was dangerously ill ; and of his fa-
mily, consisting of six children, one was confined
through sickness. The defendants also deprived
them of the grate, and suffered them to remain
without a fire, although it was in the month of
December.

Several witnesses were called on both sides.
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages .501., costs 40s.

The Loon CHIEF J us-x.lc z observed, he though
this verdict was very moderate.

STAIMEE V. SAME DEFENDANTS.

It was agreed in this case to take a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 405., costs 40s.

(PROCEEDING OF SATURDAT.)
ADELPHI THEATRE.
I/ODWELL AND ANOTIIER r. nEnatr.
Mr. CHITTY stated that till's action was brought by the pro-
prietors of the Adelphi Theatre, to recover a compensation in
damages against the defendant, for breach of contract, whereby
he engaged to perform for two seasons at their theatre.
Mr. SCARLET? said, that the plaintiffs, Messrs. Rodwell
and Jones, were proprietors of the Adelphi Theatre, and the
defendant was a performer of considerable merit, whose real
nam.: was Paul hedge, but who was known to the public by
the name of Signor aulo.--(A laugh.)—On the 6th of June,
1823, this gentleman, who was a favourite in many popular
characters, but especially in the important part of CLswu, en-
tered into an engagement with the plaintiffs for two seasons,
and they calculated accordingly on his valuable services. He
chose, however, when summoned in the usual course, to refuse
all performance of his contract, and shortly appeared at
one of the winter theatres, where he played the Clown with
great applause. Talent like his was not to be supplied' in a
moment • and the Managers of the Adelphi Theatre sustained
considerable loss by the absence of ons whose agility and
humour were exceedingly relished by their spectators. They
did not seek to recover all they had lost ; still less did they
press for vindictive damages: but they thought it right to bring
this action in order that performers might learn to respect en-
gagements of this kind, the breach of which exposed Managers
to the resentment of the public, whom they were anxious to
gratify, and deprived them of profits which they earned with
anxiety and labour.

' Mr. George Rodwell said, he knew the defendant, whose real
name was Paul Itedge, but who was called Signor Paulo.—
(" Not Apollo," said the Lord Chief Justice.) He had played
four years at the Adelphi, when that Theatre was -conducted
by Mr.. Scott, and was a great favourite--a particular favourite
with the witness ; he played chiefly Clown, in which he had
few rivals, and also distinguished himself in the part of Billy
Waters.—(A laugh.)—On the 6th of June, 1813, he signed the
agreement on which the action was brought.
[The agreement was read. It purported to be with 31r.
Rodwell only, and stipulated that. the defendant should perform
for the two next seasons at the Adelphi for 31. a week, play-
house pay, subject to the rules of the theatre, and with liberty
to send into the house 251. worth of tickets on one night in each
season, to be named by the manager.]
Mr:William Lee, the stage-manager, proved that on the 7th
of October, 1823, the defendant was summoned to the theatre,
and refused to attend, and that he performed afterwards at
Drury-lane. He was an excellent clown, and a very conspi-
cuous Billy Waters in Tom and Jeiry. There were per-
formances at the Adelphi last season.

Mr. SCARLETT WAS about to call Mr. Dunn, the treasurer
of Drury-lane, to prove the aum which the defendant received
there, when

The LORD CHM' JUSTICE reminded him that this was
not material, as he did not seek vindictive damages.
Mr. SCARLIITT assented, and said he would take a •eediet
for 40s.

Mr. 211.11tItY.t.T submitted that the plaintiffs could not re-
cover because the action was brought by two persons, and. the
contract was made only with one; and because they bad not
shOwn that they had the sanction of a licence.
SCARLETT and Mr. CHITTY replied, that the contract
being made with one of two partners for the benefit of both, might
be sued on by both, according to the case of" Skinner v. Stocks,"
4 Barn. and Ald., 437; and that the theatre must be presumed
licensed, because the defendant had treated it as such, and
because the performers were all, rogues and vagabonds if it was
no:; which the law would not presume.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICIC overruled both objections; and
Mr. 514kkarAT admitted that be could not contend against
the verdict which the plaintiffs sought. •
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff's—
Damagss, 40s.