The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-19 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 18.

HOULDITCH AND OTHERS %. THE MAILCIDIS 0i...1)014r:44AL
This cause came on upon- the hearing of a Supplemental bill,
filed by the permission of the Court, to give the plaintiftla the
benefit of certain proceedings which had taken place in Chan-
cery so long back as the year 1801. The point was the reco.
eery of the value Of debentnres to a very largeramount, which
had been given to sundry persons by. the ;Martinis of Donewil,
and 'assigned by those persons to the plaintiffs. '1 he ground
assigned as the cause of such an apparent long delay was, that
the original proceedings had been instituted by certain persons,
on behalf of themselves and tubers • and that those persons
(their particular claims being satisfied by tho defendant) had
afterwards refused to go on.
mr, FONDLAN Quit, on the part of the Marquis of bone-
gsl, resisted the payment of thepresent claims, on the ground
that the debentures had been given in the course of gambling
transactions. The fact WAS, that the' holders of these deben-
tures had proceeded up to a certain point in Chancery.mant
years back, and hail get a report in their favour, which, if
nisi,ted, they could not have sustained. Since the Marquis
had returned to this country (for he had been some time out
oldie jurisdiction of the Court) a suit had been instituted in
Irelasd, in which the present ciainis bad no clime but of being

This was an action for a breach of contract, brought by the
present managers and proprietors of Drury-laneTheatre against
the defendant, for not fulfilling an engagement entered into
with him to perform at Drury.lene to the end of the season"
(of 1821, we think). The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Burrough, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff. In the course
of last Term, Mr. Serjeent Vaughan obtained a rule to shop
cause why the virdict should not he set aside and a nonnuit
entered, on the ground of a material difference between the
plaintiff's pleadings and the proof adduced.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY appeared this day to show cause
against the rule. After the reading of most of his notes Of
the trial by the Learned Judge, the Learned Serjeant oh-
served, that the question for the decision of the Court was this
—whether, according to the evidence, the defendant's engage-
trent ended in Passion-week, or whether it went on to the.
closing of the theatre for the season. The plaintiff contended,
that the engagement was to be taken in the last-mentioned sense,
and therefore in the counts of his pleading laid the alleged
breach of contract in May. The defendant contended, that this
being after Passion week, at which time, according to his view
of it, the find season ended, was erroneously pleaded, as his
engagement had expired in that week, and that from thence to
the closing of the theatre he should be considered as playing
from week to week. The Learned Serjeant was proceeding,
when the Court interfered, and asked what damages had been
given.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY replied, a shilling damages and costs.
His client did not go. for damages; all his client wanted was
the maintenance of the principle that such contracts should be
observed.

any opinion on the
merits of'atchtlicsecasPAelA—erlwVaitlyi,°l-wltot4ilitrir:tgnot be better that there
should be a stet proceasasY This poor man will be ruined if
the costs of these matters fall on him. As Mr. Elliston, I dare
say, wants nothing more than the establishment of the prin•
doe that such engagements shall not be broken at pleasure,
he will have no objection to this recommendation of the Court.
Mr. Serjeant TARDY, atter consulting with the Attorney in
the case, asked for time till to-murrow, when his client might
be consulted.
The CouRT granted the time, intimating a hope, that after
their recommendation they should hear no more of case.