The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 3.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term, before Mr.:Baron PLATT
and Special Juries.)
GRANT 'V. MADDOX.

This was an action by Miss Grant, a vocalist of some cele-
brity, against Mr. Maddox, the proprietor and manager of
the Princess's Theatre in Oxtord.street, to recover the sum
of 941. for the alleged breach of a theatrical engagement.
Mr. MARTIN (with whom was Mr. Peacock) stated that
in February; 1844, Mr. Grant, the father of Miss Grant, en-
tered into an engagement with Mr. Maddox, on behalf of Lis
daughter, the terms of which engagement were that Miss
Grant was to perform as a vocalist at the Princess's Theatre
for three years, at a rising salary of 51. a week fur the first
year, 61. per week for the second year, and 71. per week for
the third yeer respectively. The contract was contained in
certain letters which passed between Mr. Grant and Mr.
Maddox. The engagement went on satisfactorily up to the
end of the season, which concluded in August, 1814. Mr.
Maddox then closed the theare, and it continued closed until
October, 1844. During the period it so continued closed
Mr. Maddox refused to pay Miss Grant any salary. When
applied to on the subject, Mr. Maddox said by an engage-
ment for three years, lie meant an engagement for three
seasons. Miss Grant was willing to adopt this construc-
tion. She said, let our engagement be fcr three seasons, and
pay me the increased salary of 61. per week for the second
season, and 7Z for the third season. This arrangement Mr.
Maddox refused to assent to. He paid Miss Grant 51. a week,
with some slight deductions, from February, 1844, to Fe-
bruary, 1845, whilst the theatre was open. In February,
1845, the increased salary commenced; but Mr. Maddox in
that year again refused to pay Miss Grant any salary whilst
the theatre was closed. The sums thus deducted from her
amounted to 941., to recover which this action was brought.
Miss Grant stood on her written contract.

In support of the plaintiff's case, Mr. J. Grant, the father
of the plaintiff, was called. He proved the communications
which had taken place between him and Mr. Maddox, which
corroborated the statement made on behalf of the plaintiff.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS (with whom was Mr. Thomas)
then addressed the jury for the defendant, and contended
that the construction of the engagement was a mixed m Ater
of law and fact. It was for the jury to say what was the
meaning of persons in the theatrical world, when they con-
tracted, as in this case, for a Year or years, at a weekly sa-
lary. The year, in theatrical language, meant the period of
the year during which the theatre was open, or, in theatrical
language, 'the season;" and as no money came into the
treasury when the theatre was closed, no manager would be
insane enough to undertake to pay his performers during that
period. Mr. Maddox had never suffered the performers at
his theatre, high or low, to leave on a Saturday without their
full salary. Certain deductions hed heel made from Miss
Grant's salary when the theatre was closed, in pursuance of
the contract made with her; but with the exception of those
deductions she had been paid every shil!ing to which she was
entitled.

On the part of the defendant a great number of persons,
well known in the theatrical world, both as managers and
actors, were called, and they all, without qualification, stated
that in their understanding an engagement for a year at a
weekly salary only entitled a performer to be paid during
such part of the year as the theatre was open. No more was
ever demanded. If the theatre was open during the part of
a week, the salary was proportioned to the number of nights
the theatre was open.
On cross-examination, the witnesses stated that nearly all
performers of respectability had written engagements, the
terms of which varied in many particulars, but the under-
standing universally prevailed that when the theatre was
dosed there was no pay. If the theatre was closed during
the whole year, the performer, though engaged for a year,
would receive no salary.

Mr. MARTIN, on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to the ad-
mission of the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant,
and submitted that the written contract between the parties
admitted of no doubt, and that it was not competent for the
defendant to put a different construction on it from the plain
import of the words, by evidence of a custom which prevailed,
perhaps, under a different form of contract.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought himself justified in re-
ceiving the evidence, subject to the opinion of the Court. It
appeared to him that the written contract was ambiguous,
and that the evidence for the defendant showed that the un-
derstanding of the parties was probably that contended for
by the defendant.
The jury, with some hesitation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Feb. 4.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
BOHN 0. BORN.—LORENZO DE MEDICL
An application to restrain the defendant from publishing
the works of " Lorenzo de Medici," was specially appointed
to be heard to-day, but in consequence of the absence of Mr.
Bethel], who was engaged in the Privy Council, upon his
Honour taking his seat, it was arranged that the motion
should not be proceeded with before Wednesday next, which
is the first seal after term.

BRADBURY V. MARRIOTY.-TIM DAILY SEWS NEWPSPAPEIL

The motion in this case, which was for an injunction to re-
strain the defendant from publishing a daily papor, at a price
of 2d., to be called the Daily Newt', was also postponed to
Wednesday; Mr. Rolt, on behalf of the defendant, Marriott,
undertaking not to do anything in the meantime.

IN THE 3IATTER OF THE DIRECT LONDON AND MANCITESTBR

RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. KENYON PARKER applied to the Court in this matter,
that a sum of 219,4501., which had been paid into the name
of the Accountant-General of the Court by the Direct London
and Manchester Railway Company, might be had out,
120,000/. in Console, and 99,0001. in Exchequer-bills.
The VICE-CHANcELLon said that the Learned Counsel had
better take the order that the whole sum should be laid out,
and then the parties might agree among themselves how it
should be done ; because if the course proposed was adopted
the price of Exchequer-bills might so increase as to make it
impossible to carry out the order.
Mr. K. PARKER at once acceded to the suggestion of the
Learned Judge, and the order was directed to be drawn up
in accordance with it.
EXPARTE TDB BARNSTAPLE AND TAW VALE RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. KENYON PARKER, the sum of
40,0004 paid into Court by this railway company, was
directed to be laid out.
LN THE MATTER OF TTIE WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT

YARMOUTH RAILWAY.
On the motion of the same Learned Counsel, the sum of
32,000/., paid into Court by this company, Was ordered to be
laid out.

THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LOUTH V. THE WARDENS

OF THE FREE scnoor. OF LOUTH.
The remainder of the day was occupied with the further
arguments in this case, wiaich have already occupied five
days. In consequence of the House of Lords sitting to hear
appeals to-morrow, it was arranged that at the conclusion of
the arguments to-day they should be resumed on Saturday,
and that Lis Honour should sit for that purpose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 4.
(Sittings in Nisi Prins, before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL

and a Common Jury.)
MOHLER v. BLOUNT. •
This was an action to recover damages from the defendant
on the ground of his having maliciously spread a report en-
tirely without foundation, accusing the detendant of an un-
natural cffence. The evidence went to show that the state-
ment was made wantonly and without the least justification,
and the jute immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Dam ages, 20/.
STOCKER V. GRIFFITIIS.—ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISTRAINT.
This was an action of trespass, arising out of the defen-
dant having obtained a warrant of distress in the Palace
Court against the plaintiff; and in virtue of it having made a
seizure of goods on the premises of the plaintiff, under the
impression that the furniture in question was his proper.
The defendant in the Palace Court action was Mr. Stocker,
senior, and the goods were seized as his, for a debt, and the
expellees of the action ; but now Mr. Stocker,jun., instituted the
present proceedings, on the allegation that the father in 1844,
about a year before the vizure, conveyed the goods by a deed
to him, and that the seizure was in consequence illegal. The
whele point therefore at issue was to whom the goods be-
longed.
Evidence was called to show the execution of the deed; in
opposition to which it was contended, and to some extent
supported by cross-examination and counter evidence, that
the transfer was made from improper motives, and at no
money passed between the parties. The answer to the latter
point, however, was, that a debt of 98/. was standing between
the parties, and the goods were assigned as a consideration
for it.

At the close of the examination the jury retired, and,
after an hour's absence, returned a 'verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages, 14/.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Feb. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvaNs.)
IN RE WALKER.
This bankrupt, who had carried on business in Oxford-
street as a boot-maker, came up to pass his last examination,
and was opposed on the ground that his balance-sheet was
not prepared. _ _

On the part of the defendant it was alleged that the bank-
rupt had been unable to do so in consequence of the official
assignee having refused to allow him to have access to cer-
tain books which had been seized by the messenger of the
Court.

Mr. Johnson (the official assignee) said that the bankrupt
denied that the books he required to see were his own.

The bankrupt's solicitor said that in reality they were
not, but they were books kept in business by his sons.. The
official assignee had threatened to have the bankrupt pro-
secuted for mutilating his books, and he was therefore
anxious to get an order of the Court to inspect the books he
had mentioned.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said that if the bankrupt
would swear that they were his books, he was entitled to see
them.

The attorney said ;that the defendant could not do so, but,
nevertheless, an inspection of them was necessary. If they
were not considered to be the books of the bankrupt, there
was no right to seize them.

Mr. LAWRENCE, for the assignees, said that a sum of money
bad been paid into Court to .coyer damages in any action of
damage for the seizure.

The Learned ComstissroNun said he could not make any
order, unless it was shown to him that they were the bank-
rupt's books; but, as the balance-sheet was not ready, the
bankrupt could not pass his examination.
The examination was then adjourned. with protection to
the bankrupt, to enable him to go through the accounts with
the official assignee.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 4.
(Before Mr. SECONDARY PorrEE.)
CHELTENHAM V. SMITH.

FALSE IMPIILSONMENT.—This was an inquiry to assess
damages for a false imprisonment, the defendant having
suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. HAWKINS stated the case. The plaintiff is a ship-
broker at Limehouse, and transacted business at the Stock
Exch Inge. On the 9th of July last the defendant met
plaintiff near that place and gave him a bill of ex-
change, requesting him to discount it, but he declined
and returned the bill to defendant. The next day,
whilst plaintiff was in Capel-court, in conversation
with the captain of a vessel, defendant went up
and said, "Where is the bill you robbed me of yes-
terday ?" Plaintiff said he had certainly had the bill, but
returned it, and told defendant to look in his pocket-book and
he would find it. Defendant refused, and said Mr. Sander-
son (the landlord of a tavern close by) knew that he (plain-
tiff) did not give it back. They went:to Mr. Sanderson, who
said he knew nothing about the matter, and it was then
agreed by all parties to go to the Mansion-house and have
the case decided by the Lord Mayor. On reaching there,
however, it was found that his Lordship was
not there, and defendant then said ho would give
plaintiff into charge, and actually did so. Plaintiff
Was taken to the office of the Superintendent of
Police, where defendant opened his pocket-book, and almost
the first thing he pulled out was the bill, between two cards.
Who GlArgo WM Qt. Mae; the claguaVat did