The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, MAT 28.

COTENT-GAR DEN THEATRE.
CON ST. v. HARRIS.
Mr. SUDDEN renewed his motion in this case, that the order
appointing -a receiver should be set aside altogether, upon the
answer of Mr. Harris corning in. The grounds were, that the
deed of 1812 was only for paying off a debt of 70,0001., which
had been accomplished, except to the amount of about 30001.,
and that could be done immediately, if required ; that any
other provision in that deed had not been acted upon for many
years ; that quite different conduct had been adopted, not only
by all the defendants, but by Mr. Const; that Mr. Const was
quite privy to the intention of all the parties to the deed of the
year 1822, to which he acquiesced at the time; and that many
years before Mr. Martindale, under whom Mr. Const claims,
had not only acquiesced in the fact, but particularly desired
that the Theatre should be conducted differently to the provi-
sions of the deed of 1812; therefore it was hoped his Lordship
would discharge the order altogether; because, if he did not, certainly would be the entire downfall of the Theatre. It
had already had a lamentable effect, inasmuch as it had created
a disposition of litigation among the co-defendanfs, Mr.
Harris having had to file a bill against Messrs. Willett,
Forbes, and Kemble, for a specific perfornsance of their lease.
Mr. liana' submittdd, that this motion could not be pro..
ceeded with; for this reason, that Pie. Ifairia had lodged an
appeal to the House of Lords against the order of the Court ;
therefore, Mr. Hart considered it impossible that Mr. Harris
could be allowed to proceed in two ways at the same time with
a view to obtain the same object.
His LORDSHIP was at once clearly of opinion, that Mr.
Const was entitled to call upon Mr. Harris, either to withdraw
his appeal to the House of Lords. or if he proceeded with that
appeal, had a right to say,. he had no business to come here on
this motion. He would give Mr. Harris till Monday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 28.
UDGMENT.—ALIENS.
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF THOMAS V. ACCLAM.
On a former day the question at issue—.,namely, whether the
lessor of the plaintiff was an alien—was argued, when Mr.
TINDALL maintained that the lessor of the plaintiff MU not an
alien, and Mr. PARSE maintained the contrary.
The facts of the case were shortly these :—Previous to the
year 1775 a British subject, named James Ludlow, was born at
Rhode Island, in America, where he married, and continued to
reside until his death. Subsequently to the acknowledgment
of the independence of the United Statei by this Court, the
lessor of the plaintiff, who is the daughter of
.James Ludlow,
was born at Rhode Island, and Conceiving that she was a Bri-
tish subject never took any steps to become naturalised.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE this day pronounced the opi-
nion of the Court, that previous to the birth of the lessor of the
plaintiff her father, James Ludlow had ceased to be a subject
of tile Crown of Great Britain, and Clad become an alien thereto;
and consequently she having been born afterwards in America
was an alien, and not entitled to take lands in England by inhe-
ritance. The Lord Chief Justice observed, that the Court, in
coming to that conclusion, had the satisfaction of being sup-
ported by a similar opinion given On a similar occasion by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.