The Sun.
London, England, 1857-10-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Oct. 14.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before the Senior Commissioner.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM TYLER.---THE
SURREY GARDENS.

The bankrupt was described as a dealer in foreign
animals and birds, Penton-place' Walwortb,
Surrey, known as the Royal Surrey Gardens, and
of Cringleford, Norfolk. This was the last exami-
nation meeting. The balance-sheet, commencing
Dec. 1, 1855, and ending at the date of the peti-
tion, August, 1857, bas the following items :
Surplus, Dec. 1855, 8191. ; creditors, unsecured,
1,89u1. ; ditto, holding,;
security, 2,3851. liability
on unpaid calls on 438 Royal Surrey Garden shares,
3,5001. ; salary as manager of Royal Surrey Gar-
dena, 9001. By good debts, 101/. ; doubtful, 340/. ;
463 Surrey Gardens shares, given up to official as-
signee (no value set down) ; property given up,
501. ; by Surrey Gardens shares held by creditors,
1,500/. ; trade charges, 1,2631. ; losses, 2,305/. ;
expenses, 3651.
Mr. Lucas supported. Mr. Reid (from the
office of Mr. Blake, Serjeant's Inn) appeared fur
the assignees, and consented to the bankrupt
passing.
T. _ _ _ _

Mr.-T. B. Fleming, representing shareholders
in the Surrey Gardens, wished to examine the
bankrupt.
The bankrupt stated that he had purchased the
Zoological Gardens from Mr. Cross in 1844, for
11,5001. The original agreement was for 14,0001.
No estimate or calculation was made, but he con-
sidered the gardens worth that amount. Knows
the profit which Mr. Cross had made. It was more
than 1,0001. aye ir, perhaps 2,000/. The above
anloant included the stock and premises. He could
give no idea of the value of the stock—it was so
fluctuating ; for, instance, a giraffe, for which he
paid 3001., and was afterwards offered 6001. for,
was sold at law: for 401. Mr. Coppock, solicitor,
advanced him 10,2001. towardethe purchase money,
taki ig ass_.curity the lease of the premises and au
agre meat for a mortage. When he sold the gar-
deni to the Surrey Gardens Company heiowe
M-. Coppock 11.0001. for money advanced and
interest. Mr. Coppock was pia in shares of
die company. The agreement for the sale of
the Gardens waA made with the gentlemen who
were afterwards directors of the company ; the com-
Rimy was not then formed. Tney agreed to give
14,0001. in shares of the company, which were
considered worth 101. each. The live stock was 1.,
sold to
mises and tile buildings. After the coinpail was
pre-
formed l!l
e c• nPanY, merely the lelse of the pre-
te
had executed what he believed to be au
assignment to them. It was prepa,-ed. by Mr.
Chappell, then solicitor to the company, and exe-
cuted at Mr. Coppoek's office. Mr. Coppock got
1,100 shares in his own name, and 300 in his (bank-
rcpt's) name; that made 14,0001. He had had
nothing to do with the gardens since his bankruptcy.
He was aware that the gardens were mortgaged.
When he sold the gardens to the company he had
no solicitor ; he thanked God he had never had oc-
casion for one in his like. (Laughter.)
Mr. Lucas objected to this examination, as irre-
levant.

Mr. Fleming said bis object was to ascertain
whether the estate was really Tyler's at the present
moment. There was some doubt about it, as they
had not been able to get at any assignment, or any
information about-a,ny assignment. Was the bank-
rupt quite satisfied that he had executed an as-
signment ?

Bankrupt—l was told that it was one. A portion
of it was read to me.
The bankrupt then passed ; and the 17th Nov.
was named for the tfl, 'oath meeting.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
(Before Francis Bayley, Esq., Judge,)
FONBLANQUE V. RIZTeICSTONE. —IMPORTANT TO THE
LITERARY AND THEATRICAL PROFESSION.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Albany Fon hlanque, jun., barrister-at-law, resid-
ing in Manchester, against Mr. Buckstone, the
comedian, and lessee of the Theatre Royal Hay-
market, to recover the eurn of 261. ss. fur wrong-
fu.ly detaining a manuscript play entitled, " Hamp-
stead Heath."
Mr. Buckstone was seated by the side of his
sciicitor (Mr. H. T. Roberts), whilst the plaintiff
conducted his own case. He said—ln December
last I sent Mr. Buckstone a written farce, entitled
"Hampstead Heath,"with hints and cuts upon the
times, for his approval and acceptation. It was at
the recommendation of a mutual friend that I sent
the piece, it being considered to be peculiarly
adapted for Mr. Beckstone's theatre ; and receiv-
ing no answer in a fortnight, I wrote a letter, but
get no reply. I wrote four or five letters upon the
subject, requesting Mr. Buckstone to give his de-
cieion, that I might know whether the piece was
accepted or not.
In answer to a question from the Court,
Mr. Bucket )ne here said he had not the letters in
question. It was not his practice to keep such com-
munications. He had destroyed them.
Mr. Fonblanque—l wrote again, telling him I
was much inconvenienced—that the thing was of
an ephemeral nature—
that it was spoiling, and
would be of no value to me afterwards. I again
wrote, with a cover directed to myself with stamps
begging ray farce if he had not had
time
afterwards apprised him that I
to read him to
it. return
I
should come to
towni and see after it, my object
being to
obtain it fhe would not accept it,
and submit it to some other manager. Subsequently
I came to London, and went to the Haymarket, but
could not see Mr. Buckstone. Mr. Wyld, the trea-
surer, said Mr. Buckstone desired him to say that
disappointede'sarillt in having
it should be left out for. me on the following day at
in the week ; then wrote,
ines.tigattihn: time I was in town
Stating that I had been de-
tltelai
einictieelesel iol:d(iianungondlf
exceedingly
obtaining
should
d it,
nowa
ida
tvho Londonthat unless
recourse
ersstsehiattot
theoln at
lhslteeadg2efis
vtdheo 000rri.
xmD.
atuyi
times
called so many
to
oave adopt worethe
wlasraest-
turned by Monday I should issue a plaint. Last
Saturday the " farce". was returned without a single
word in apology for its lengthened detention. If
Mr. Buckston-. had written to me and stated that
two, but from the cavalier manner in which I wee
given him a year or
ti trelav was mislaid, ,
thoughtl wouldproper
.
the present pro-
ceedings, and, under the circumstances, I submit
to recover a sufficient
I am entitled amount of com-
pensation for my loss of time. I have unsuccess-
fully tried to arrange the matter with Mr. Buck-
stone-
The learned Judge—What expense do you claim ?
Mr. Foublanque—M-
y railway jouiney to and
fro. I was uot pot to any expense in London, be-
e Luse I stayed with a friend ; but the farce is of no
value to me now, because its allusions were to the
times. It would have been worth at least 25
guineas.
In defence, Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Buck-
s!one, in clueing before the public iu this case, did
so upon principle. Metropolitan managers gener-
a!l v were inundated withthe productions of auth?rs,
and. the present was one of those farces which,:
among many others, were left at Mr. Buckstone s
door without solicitation ; whereas, if he had asked
f )r such a production, no doubt he would be liable
for its return. If the court ruled that •managers of
theatres were bound to return manuscrip s left
voluntarily, then a new course must be adopted by
these gentlemen. Mr. Roberts next submitted
that there bad not been a sufficient legal demand
by the plaintiff ; the precise contents of the plain-
tiff's letters had not been stated. Moreover, there
had been no proof of damage sustained.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
Tee leaned Judea intimated that there were
difliculties in the case, and he would therefore take
time to consider his judgment, which ha would
give on Wednesday next.
Judgment deferred accordingly.