The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 3.
IN THE MATTER OF LORD PORTSMOUTH.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that thi; was the peti-
tion of Henry Arthur Wallop Fellowes, and Henry Fellowes,
the Committee of the person and estate of Lord Portsmouth,
praying that it might be referred to the Master, to inquire
and certify by whom, and at what expence, Lord Ports-
mouth had been maintained and supported since the 28th of
February last; and what would be fit and proper to be al-
lowed for his Lordship's maintenance for the time to come, re-
gard being had to his rank, circumstances, and estate; and that
the Master might be directed to ascertain and settle the costs,
charges, and expellees' which had been incurred by, and on
behalf of the petitioner, H. W. Fellowes, in or about the suing
out and presenting the commission, and the matters and in-
quiries relating thereto; and that in ascertaining and settling
such costs, the Master might be directed to have regard
to the particular circumstances of the case. The petition
set forth the commission, the orders which had been made,
the continuance of the commission, and the affirmance of
the order with respect to the committee of the person and
estate ; and it stated that the petitioner and his father had
been put to considerable costs beyond those usually incur-
red in such matters, by reason of the absence and seclusion of
his Lordship since his marriage in February, 1814, from the
petitioner and every other member of Lordship's family, and
the consequent ignorance on the part of his family of the real
state and condition of his Lordship ; in collecting evidence
from various places at a distance from each other, advisiugwith
physicians respecting his state of mind, &c. It therefore pray-
ed that the Lord Chancellor would direct the Master to ascer-
tain the costs and charges so incurred, and that in ascertaining
and settling. such costs, the Master might have regard to the
particular circumstances of the case. The Attorney-General
added, that he believed Mr. Pepys appeared for the next of kin
to consent to the petition.
Mr. TRESLOVE said he had a petition from Lady Ports-
mouth, praying for a reference to the Master to consider what
was prover to be allowed for her maintenance and support.
' Mr. 1. RANCE (Lady Portsmouth's solicitor) said, that Mr.
Heald was instructed to appear on this last petition, and pray
that it might be inquired what had been the expence of de-
fending Lord Portsmouth from the commission of lunacy.
The Loan CHANCELLOR had no objection to allow all
reasonable expences and charges. At present let an order only
be taken on this petition. Whenever a petition should be pre-
sented for an allowance for the maintenance and support of
Lord Portsmouth, the order should be made to have regard to
his estate and family.
Mr. TRESLOVE said,, that in the deed of 1799 there was a
clause directing a provision to be made for Lord Portsmouth
and his family.
,The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the order should be drawn
up in that way. The Court would direct the Master to inquire
what family he had ; and, in settling the maintenance, to have
regard to the circumstances of his estate and family : but lie
would not go the length of saying that those who defended
Lord Portsmouth from this commission should have all the
costs of that defence; for there were some circumstances in it
which he could`not possibly allow to be paid for out of the
estate. Was there a petition,for a future maintenance for Lord
Portsmouth ?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said there was.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Then let the Master be directed
to inquire what was proper to be allowed for the expenses of
the commission ; out of what fund it was to be paid ; what
family Lord Portsmouth had ; and what should be allowed for
his maintenance and support, regard being had to his estate
and family. •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 3.
Nothing of any public interest occurred in this Court to-day

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 3.
THEATRICAL CONTRACTS.
ELLISTON V. WEBSTER.
Mr. Sejeant VAUGHAN moved for a Rule to skew cause why
the verdict in this cause with one shilling damages should not
be set aside and a nonsuit entered. It was an action tried
at the London Sittings before Mr. Justice Bunnouun, and
brought by the plaintiff; the Manager of Drury-Lane Theatre,
against the defendant, a performer of that establishment, for It
breach of contract in absenting himself from the theatre be-
fore the close of the theatrical season. It appeared that on
the 13th of October, 1821, the defendant engaged with
Mr. Elliston for " the then next season," at a salary of 11.
15s. per week, and ten shillings for his wife, who was to
sing in the chorus, undertaking at the same tune to at-
tend rehearsals, &c. Certain letters were read at the trial,
being the correspondence between the manager and the de-
fendant, in which the latter stated his ability to perform
Rosencrantz and Guidenstern, anti " walking gentlemen."—
There was no stamped agreement between the parties, and tins
was one ground of the motion. The other was, that the season
ended in Passion week of 1822, in consequence of Mr. Kean's
visit to America. This it was stated on the trial was an unusual
occurrence, but it was clearly the termination of the season,
although the theatre opened again in a few days; and the de-
fendant continued his service up to May, when he left the
theatre, having previously intimated his intention to the acting
manager.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN contended he was at liberty to leave
when he pleased, the season for which he was engaged in Octo-
ber 1821, having ended in March. Under all the circumstances
of the case he hoped their Lordships would grapt the application.
The Judges, after some consultation, granted the motion on
'the first point.

A great crowd assembled yesterday at the
Mermaid at Hackney, to witness the !scent of
a balloon. After a delay of many hours the
ascent was made by Mr. GREEN, at about forty
minutes past seven o'clock in the evening. The
balloon was visible until half-past eight.