The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVEAING, JANUARY 12, lE€6.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

s
COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
KNOB V. GYE—THE ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA.

This was another phase in this complicated case.
The plaintiff in the first instance instituted pro-
ceedings against Mr. Frederick Gye, the lessee of
theßoyal Italian Opera, Covent-garden, with whom
it was stated a partnership existed with respect to
the management of the theatre, for a statement of
the profits of the undertaking. The parties were
executors of the late Mr. Thistlethwaite, who was
an officer in the army, and who was killed in the
Crimea, and who, previous to his departure from
England, was interested in the theatre. The
Vice-Chancellor, after hearing counsel at great
length declared against Col. Knox, but directed that
a certain sum of money should be paid him under a
bond, which was then in existence. The case was
then taken before the Lords Justices on appeal, and
their lordships refused to alter the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor. The present proceedings were
now commenced by Col. Knox, as executor of the
late Mr. Thistlethwaite, against Mr. Gye for a full
inquiry into the expenses and profits of the theatre,
and also for payment of the money directed by the
Vice-Chancellor. The suit was opposed by Mr. Gye
one of the pleas being that the time. that had ex-
pired since the death of Mr. Thistlewaite, had put
a barrier to all further proceedings by Col. Knox.
The case seemed to occupy the Court over the
whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Mr. Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush.)

SWARBRICK V. WLLLIAMS, AND OTHERS.
Mr. Brett moved for leave to enter the verdict in
this case for defendants. The case was tried at
Liverpool, and was instituted by the plaintiff,
Mrs. Mary Swarbriek against the defendants,
who were the trustees of the second St.
Andrew's Perpetual Building Society, for
the recovery of £lO7 profit and interest, the
amount the plaintiff had deposited with the
society. It was stated in the rules that a member
not having executed a mortgage, and being desirous
of withdrawing, should be enabled to do so by giv-
ing a month's notice. This being the position of
the plaintiff she wished. for the repayment of her
deposits, and gave the requisite notice, but the de-
fendants said the money of the society was invested
in mortgages, and therefore they were not in a posi-
tion at the time she applied to return the money,
but that it would be paid her in the order of rotation,
as other persons had given notice of withdrawal, all
of whom would be paid as soon as the money from
the mortgages turned into the society. The jury
gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed, but reserved leave to defendant to move.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

Mr. Selfe—What property have you, then, to be
protected ?
Applicant—Furniture.

Selfe—Have you got it since your husband
left you, or is it what you• had with your husband ?
Applicant—lt is the furniture that we had toge-
ther, but it was s eized for rent. Some ladies and
gentlemen have redeemed it for me, and I should
not like my husb and to come back and take it away.
Nobody will do anything more for me unless you
grant me a protection order.
Mr. Selfe—T he law says the order must be for
property acquired after the desertion. This furni-
niture was sei zed. You may take the order for
what it is worth.

THIRD EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, 7 o'CLocK.