The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-16 00:00:00

cyg 'T. 11UGTIE8.

• This waS an action brought by 111 r. Predk. Gye,
the lessee of Covent-garden Theatre, to reeaver hack
£5,000, rent paid in 4Chrit4Co fox her Majesty's
Theatre in tlio gaplarliet kr one yea; as part of

a term leased to him by agreement, which had not
been performed, dated in, March, 1853, together
withinterest on that sum, and £459 paid for in-
surance of the house. The defendant pleaded
various pleas, denying his liability.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Creasy, and the Hon. George
Denman appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Pigott, and Mr. Lloyd for the
defendant.

It appeared that the defendant is a solicitor, who
for many years had made advances to Mr. Lumley,
the lessee of the Opera-house in the Haymarket.
Mr. Lumley becoming involved, the defendant sued
him and recovered three several judgments against
him, amounting to about £B,OOO. Mr. Hughes sued
out a writ of eleg it electing to take possession of the
theatre, and out of its rents to get his debts paid.
An inquest was held by the sheriff as to its annual
value, and it was fixed as worth £3,000 a-year over
and above the ground-rent of £2,000, and under the
*legit Mr. Hughes was entitled to get possession of
the theatre and hold it until its rents and profits
had paid his debt. As soon as Mr. Gye heard that
Mr. Hughes had got command over the theatre he
offered to lease it from Mr. Hughes, and ultimately
an agreement was come to between them that Mr.
Gye should have a lease of the house for such term
and interest in it as Mr. Hughes had at a rent of
£5,000 a-year, payable in advance, Mr. Gye to
keep up the insurances, and to be let into possession
on the 31st of March, 1853. On the 30th of March
Mr. Gye sent Mr. Hughes a cheque for £5,000, and
next day went with Beck, Mr. Hughes's agent, to
take possession. On getting to the theatre they
fou,nd the chain across the door, and admission
denied them, a man of Mr. Lumley's being in pos-
session. The plaintiff was told it would be all
right next day, and in a few days he was called on
to pay insurances which were expiring, amounting
to abont £364, 10s. and he had subsequently paid
further insurances amounting to £94. Not getting
possession of the theatre, he applied to Mr. Hughes,
who brought his action of ejectment against Mr.
Lumley, and judgment in that action was not given
till Dec., 1854, the theatre remaining closed. In 1856
Mr. Hughes sold his interest to Lord Ward,who had
before purchased " properties" of the theatre for
£10,500, and it was then out of his power to give
possession to the plaintiff, and the litigation about
the possession had gone on till 1858. Mr. Gye had
demanded to have hie £5,000 rent paid iu advance,
and ,Imoney paid returned to him, as he had never
been lot into possession, or received any benefit
whatever from the payment. The defence was that
Mr. Gye did not want to open the theatre that sea-
son, and had therefore lost nothing, and that the
plaintiff never supposed the defendant could give
him possession of the theatre, and that the defendant
only leased to him such interest and power as he
had.

Mr. Gye, the plaintiff, was called, and proved
these facts and the agreement for a lease, and a
great number of letters were put in. He was sub-
jected to a very long cross-examination, in the
course of which he stated that it was his intention
to have opened the theatre, as he could have worked
it with economy on the alternate days with his Co-
vent-garden company, many of whom were paid
weekly salaries, and he positively denied that he
had ever stated that it would be worth his while to
give the £5,000 to keep it closed.
Mr. Bovill, for the defence, contended that, owing
to the number of boxes and stalls which had been
sold, Mr. Gye had written that this would be an in-
surmountable barrier to his opening the theatre
that year, and that Mr. Gye was anxious to take
the theatre and get it into his hands, as he would
then realise greater profits from Covent-garden
Theatre ; that the agreement to lease was carefully
drawn to lease according to the extent of the de-
fendant's interest only ; that Mr. Gye knew there
must be an ejectment, as Mr. Lumley had given
him notice that he should resist giving [up posses-
sion ; and that Mr. Gye was content to take the
agreement for what it was worth. It was also con-
tended that, the theatre having been in fact closed,
Mr. Gye had got all he wanted, and consideration
for his money, for which he never applied until
nearly six years had expired.
At the conclusion of the learned counsel's speech,
the case was adjourned at half-past six, until to-
morrow.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
IN THE GOODS OF ISABELLA BANKES, DECEASED.
Dr. Spinks moved that administration of the
goods of the late Isabella Bankes might be granted
to Alfred Nappenden, the husband of her sister
Jane, or to any other person whom the Court might
select, limited to the purpose of representing her in
certain proceedings in Chancery. No step could be
taken in that suit until there was some personal re-
presentative of Isabella Bankes, and although there
was reason to believe she had left a will, of which
.130 r. Smethurst was the executor, no such will had
been proved, and if it should be propounded it
would probably be opposed by the next of kin.
Sir C. Cresswell said he could not grant adminis-
tration until the snpposed executor of the supposed
will had been called to prove it. He should there-
fore reject the application.

MARSH. AND OTHERS V. MARSH AND OTHERS.
The question for decision was as to the validity
of a will dated May 19, 1856, a codicil of June 18,
1856, and another codicil of April 29, 1858, of Mr.
James S. Caldwell, late of Linley Wood, in the pa-
rish of Audley, Staffordshire, deceased. The plain-
tiffs, who propounded the instruments, were Eliza
Louisa Marsh, Georgiana Amelia Marsh, and Rosa-
mond Jane Marsh, nieces of the deceased, and execu-
trixes under the papers in question. Mr. Caldwell
died Nov. 17, 1858, a bachelor, without father or
mother, leaving several nephews and nieces, the
children of two deceased sisters and of one surviving
sister, Mrs. Marsh. The property consisted of
£ll,OOO or £15,000 in personalty and realty, of the
value of about £l,BOO a year, situated in Cheshire,
Staffordshire, and Derbyshire; besides some lease-
hold property in London. He appeared to have
lived on friendly terms with all his relations, and
one great object of his testamentary intentions
seemed to be to secure, as far as he could, the con-
tinuance of the property at Linley Wood in the
family, or of parties who would take the name of
Caldwell, and in order to carry out that intention he
left a large number of wills which were found to-
gether in a bundle, along with several unexecuted
instruments, the day after his death. The defend-
ants pleaded that the will of May 16, 1856, and the
two codicils appointing Mr. Caldwell's nieces execu-
trixes, were invalid and of no effect, not having
been executed according to the provisions of the
statute Ist Vic., cap. 26, but that the last sheet of
the paper, dated May 19, 1853, was duly executed
and attested, and formed a separate testamentary
instrument, which the deceased intended to take
take effect as a will or paper revocatory. They pro-
pounded a will dated March 1, 1851, and two codi-
cils dated respectively Jan. 31, 1852, and April 29,
1858, and submitted that by the latter codicil the
testator intended to revoke the two former instru-
ments.

The learned judge said that, under all the circum-
stances, the Court would pronounce for the will
propounded by the executors.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Fsb. 15.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Sarah Wells was charged
with embezzlement.

It appeared from the evidence that she had for
some time past lived in the domestic service of Mr.
I. Barry, of Queenhithe, stationer, and that from
time to time she was entrusted with various sums
of money for the purpose of paying housekeeping
bills. These, it was presumed, she applied rega-
larly to their appropriate departments, until ade-
mand was made upon Mr. Barry from tradesmen
whom he believed had been already paid ; and upon
this an inquiry took place, which resulted in the
discovery that the prisoner had, instead of paying,
in many cases appropriated the money to her own
use. Thus a file of milk bills were produced in
court, all apparently duly receipted, but the party
whose signature purported to be appended declared
that he never received the money nor signed the
receipts.
Mr. Beard, who appeared for the prisoner, was
anxious that his client should be dealt with sum-
marily for the larceny only, on the ground that she
intended ultimately to repay the money-, but
Mr. Alderman Abbiss refused to adopt this course,
considering the offence to be one of a serious charac-
ter, and the prisoner was accordingly committed to
take her trial for the higher offence of forgery.
BOW-ST-

:‘REET.—Edward George Flick, who
on the previous day obtained the discharge of a pro-
tection order granted to his wife in October last,
attended. before Mr. Henry, to complain that his
wife and her friends resisted him in reclaiming his
goods.
He stated that on presenting himself at the place
where his wife resided with her brother, for the
purpose of taking away some goods which she had
removed thither, he was opposed by her brother
and father, who had gathered to their aid a mob of
nearly 100 persons. He was violently thrust out,
and his ankle was sprained. He did not want to
take anything belonging to his wife, but only the
property which had originally been his own.
Mr. Henry was about to send an officer to remon.
striae with the wife, and impress upon her that the
order being discharged she must yield to the law,
but as the constable was about to have with the
applicant, his wife made her appearance.
She complained that her husband 1 a I made a
disturbance, and had•endeavoured to remove certain
property which belonged to her brother. She had
nothing belonging to. him (her husband).
The husband said the goods he claimed were the

excepted articles which he retained, as being under
the value of £2O when he made out his schedule of
insolvency.
The wife here declared with much vehemence,
that she would never live with her husband again.
Mr. Henry said this was not the question ; her
husband did not want to live with her.
The Husband—No, not I. I want nothing but
what I can swear to as my own property.
The wife alleged that the property had been dis-
posed of under a bill of sale, but the creditors, out
of compassion for her, gave her a portion, which
were the articles now in question. She had sold
them to her brother to buy food.
The Husband—No such thing. They were not
included in the bill of sale, as I bought them after
it was executed, and they were removed with the
knowledge and sanction of the holder of the bill of
sale, as not being part of what he claimed.
The Wife—l bought some after you were in
prison. _ _

- The Husband—l don't want to claim those ; not
but that I might, for you bought them with my
money. _ _ _

The wife here lost her temper, and began vio-
lently to harangue the magistrate, the usher, and a
party of friends who accompanied her, upon what
she termed the hardness of the case.
Mr. Henry recommended her to keep her temper.
He was endeavouring to matte the best arrangement
for her, but if he were to explain the state of the
law, she would find that it was less favourable to
her than she imagined. As she still continued her
loud abuse of her husband and of the Court, his
worship observed that she appeared to forget the
cancelling of the order of protection. Her husband
had a right, if he chose, to take even what she had
subsequently purchased.
The parties then left the court.
In the course of the day they returned, and stated
that the landlord of the house where the disputed
goods were had taken them in execution for rent.
Mr. Henry said in that case he could not inter-
fere.