The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY 9.

COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.-FRANCIS CONST V. HENRY

_ -
HARRIS, CHARLES xumALE, AND OTHERS.

Mr. HART stated that this was a bill praying for an injunc-
tion of the Court to restrain the defendants from applying the
receipts and profits of Covent-garden Theatre to any other pur-
Tposes than those specified in the deed of the 9th of May, 1812.
he bill also prayed that a receiver might be appointed to re-
ceive the monies which were so obtained from the theatre.

Mr. BELL, on the part of defendants, said, that a demurrer
in the case was pending, and he conceived, therefore that the
present application could not now be granted.
Mr. HART thought that notwithstanding the demurrer, he
had a right to submit this motion.
Mr. BELL had never heard, after a demurrer was filed, that
a receiver could be appointed previous to hearing the demurrer.
Mr. HART submitted that a party had no right, by slipping
a demurrer upon the file, to protect himself against an applica-
tion of this nature. The plaintiff here had filed his bill for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from misapplying the
funds, and by filing this demurrer tile whole proceeding was
paralyzed. The demurrer, however, now tiled, was not a de-
murrer for want of equity, but for want of parties. The de-
fendants said that other persons were implicated in the relief
sought for by the Bill, and this demurrer called for the appear-
ance of those persons as parties in the cause.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR could not now entertain a motion
of this nature, until all parties were brought before the Court.
Before any decision were given, the Court was bound to con-1
sider whether other parties interested in the acts of the Court
were or were not absent. Ile was very ready to admit that if a
demurrer had been filed merely for the purpose of creating de-
lay, and prejudicing the real interests of parties, he should take
a different view of the matter. Mr. Hart might then apply to
the Court in a different shape.
Mr. BELL observed, that no affidavit whatever had been filed
to support the allegations made by Mr. Hart.
Mr. HART said, lie had made no allegations whatever. 'He
wished that the demurrer should be heard on as early a day as
possible.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR had no objection to fix Monday
for hearing the demurrer.
Mr. BELL said, that the equity of the case arose in March,
1822. The bill was filed on dig 15th of April last, and the
affidavits were not filed until the day before yesterday.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that under these circum-
stances he should not feel bound to take this case out of the
usual course. If the plaintiff had proceeded with reasonable
diligence, he might have been induced to dispose of the case
earlier than in its usual course.

Mr. HART thought that reasonable diligence had been used.
Tho plaintiff had been most unwilling to make this question a
subject of litigation.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked, when the violation of the
deed of May, 1812, first commenced.
Mr. HART was not prepared to answer the question.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought, that the only course the
plaintiff could now take was to make a special application to
the Court to hear the demurrer, and support that application
by affidavit. The defendant, Mr. Harris, ought to be sup.
plied with a notice.
Mr. HART said, that Mr. Harris was not to be found, al.
though diligent search had been made.
Upon the application of Mr. BELL, the Court allowed the
costs of the present motion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 9.
THE ICING V. TRANCIS.

Mr. GURNEY moved for the judgment of the Court on this
defendant, who was found guilty of publishing two libels ; one
several gentlemen of that city, who had been trustees under a
on a gentleman named Foord, of Canterbury, and the other on
deed of assignment conveying to diem his property for the be-
nefit of his creditors. Both libels were printed on one placard,
which was circulated at Canterbury ; that on Mr. Foord im-
puted to him gross treachery and oppression, and that on the
trustees charged them with perjury m the course of proceed...
ings which he had instituted against them in Chancery.
Affidavits were put in on the part of the defendant, statink
ii t
that he had been an opulent farmer and ho-merchant in Kent,
tbeunycc a
occupy farm
a which
ltieicnl tenant,
he was
had broken till ruined by an unfortunate speculation in hops; that Mr. Foord
bcompelledken
htoissperoll,.mainsedhtyo
promisedpe r t him to
purchasing
the farm for another; that he had been so affected
.
by this disappointment as to fall into serious illness wrote H
the libels in a state of great irritation and distreas.. e.also en-
tered into a 'statement of the conduct of his trustees, in which be
charged them with injustice towards him. in reply to these
affidavits, the prosecutors positively negatived all the facts
charged against them, and declared, that they always intended
to do the defendant service. A number,,of respectable persons
deposed that he had borne an excellent character in all the re.
lationi"f life ; and several of his former servants described him
as havinecreated a regard towards him by his conduct, which
rendered it extremely painful to leave him when his establish.
merit was broken up by his misfortunes.
Mr. ADOLPHUS spoke in mitigation of punishment.
Mr. GURNEY, on behalf of the prosecutors, disavowed all
vindictive feeling, and asked only for the protection to which
they were entitled from the laws.
The Co unT, adverting to this disclaimer of the prosecutors,
anti to the 'fortunes which had pressed on the defendant,.
sentenced him to be imprisoned for each libel two months in
Maidstone gaol; and at the expiration of the four Months, to
give security for his good behaviour for live years, himself in
1,0001., and four sureties in 1001. each.
Mr. ADOLPUT.Ts solicited that the place of confinement might
be changed from Maidstone to Canterbury,- that the defendant
might receive assistance from his friends.
Mr. GURNEY said he was instructed to throw no obstacle in
the way of accommodation which the Court might think *Per
to grant
The COURT, expressing their assurancethat after this indul-
gence the defendant would not repeat his annoyances to the
prosecutors, altered the place of imprisonment to the county
gaol at Canterbury.

ENGLISII v. CAVILEItO AND WIFE.
.111 T. CAMPBELL showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr.
nndall for quashing a bailable writ issued against Antonio
Cavilero and this lady for a debt contracted by her previous to
her marriage. The rule was obtained on an affidavit that An-
tonio Cavilero, on the 18th April, when the writ issued, and for
some time before, was second secretary to:the Spanish ambas-
sador, and employed in writing and copying. dispatches. The
learned counsel now produced an affidavit, stating that the lady
was an English woman, who bad dealt with the ,plaintiff ever
since 1810; that she enjoyed a fortune of 1,8001. per ann. in her
' own right, mid was also possessed of considerable property in
furniture and jewels;. and that the deponent was informed, and
believed, that the appointment of secretary was merely colour-
able, and obtained only to protect the defendants from liability
to the lady's creditors. He contended that there was no ground
for quashing the writ, even if the persons of the defendants
were protected from arrest; that Madame Cavilero could not
share the privilege of her husband, if he possessed it; and that
there was abundant reason to expect that the whole appoint-
ment was a mere trick, in order to defraud those to whom the
parties were justly indebted.
Mr. T YNDALL in support of the rule, urged that the affi-•
davit of the defendant Cavilero was positive, while that on the
part of the plaintiff was only to belief, which might rest on no
good foundation.
'['he COO= were of opinion that the 'rule must be dis-
charged. The defendant had not brought hiniself within the
Statute of Anne, which only rendered process void, when the
party was a "domestic servant" of the Ambassador, and this
he had not even suggested. There was, besides, great reason
to suspect, that, from the loose statement made respecting the
appointment, it was ineriily an artifice to avoid process.—The
rule was discharged with costs.

FATAL QUARREL—Two jourueymen .bakers,
of the names of M'Cloud and Lake, in consequence of a quer.
ref between them on Saturday night last, at the Bedford ',lead,
King-street, Bloomsbury-square, agreed to decide it by blows,
and proceeded for that purpose to Copenhagen-fields, yesterday
evening at six o'clock. The parties were of nearly equal weight,
but M'Cloud much the tallest, and a fine grown young man,
about 20 years of age ; his opponent short, but square set. The
contest lasted about 20 minutes. Nothing but give and take,
when, in the 10th round, 111‘Cloud received a blow under the
ear that stupified him, and he fell to rise no more. He expired
almost instantly—his body was conveyed home in a coach.
Lake is considerably bruised, and suffering much from the
effects of the severe beating he received—_coroner's verdict—
" Manslaughter against Lake and the se:onds."

IMPORTANCE OF EXTERlOR.—Serjeant TOR..
Imo presides in the Insurrection Court, arrayed
in the full costume of his profession, as does
also the Assistant Barrister, though neither he
nor Serjeaut LLOYD were, before the present
Sessions, in the habit of wearing it. When the
prisoners were brought up before him, this novel
sight produced an obvious sensation among them,
and one of • them exclaimed—" Och ! we're
dished fairly—they are in earnest now, for they
have the wigs on !"--(Co*r Advertiser.)