The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH 3.
COVENT GARDEN THEATRE.
HARRIS V. ICEMBLE AND OTHERS.

In this cause a Bill was filed by the-plaintiff, one of the proprietors
of Covent Garden Theatre, against the defendants, Messrs.. Kem-
ble, Willett, and Forbes, for the specific performance of a con-
tract. It appeared from the bill and the statements made by.
Counsel, that, upon the rebuilding of the Theatre after its de-
struction by fire, the father of the plaintiff became the Manager,
and continued to act in that capacity at the salary of 1,0001. a
year, up to his death, which took place in 1820. The plaintiff,
on his father's death, was the proprietor of 7-12ths of the theatre,
and his share with those of the three defendants amounted to iths
of the whole establishment. Some disputes had commenced be-
tween the parties as to the manner in which the Theatre was to
he conducted. Mr. Harris would by no means consent that it
should be under the management of Mr. Charles Kemble, whilst
on the other hand, the defendants ware unwilling that the plaintiff
should continue as his father's successor. It was therefore deemed
adviseable that one party or the other should retire, and a proposal
was made by Mr. Harris, either to dispose of his share to the
defendants, or to take theirs at a reasonable value. After much
negociation, it was at length arranged that the defendants should
pay to the plaintiff an annual rent of twelve thousand pounds for his
share. In order to carry this arrangement into effect the parties
signed a contract, by which they transferred their respective
shares, for a nominal consideration, to a Mr. Harrison, in trust that
he should afterwards grant a lease of them to the defendants for
twelve thousand pounds a year, which sum he was to pay over to
the plaintiff. This contract was entered into in the year 1822,
and it was for its specific performance that the present bill was
filed. It prayed that the defendants be compelled, by the order of
the Court, to fulfil the contract, or at least of such parts of it as
were not inconsistent with the rights of Mr. Const, who was
proprietor of the remaining one-eighth share. On the part of the
defendants it was now insisted that the contract ought not to stand
and the following, among others, were the reasons advanced in
support of their case. 'They charged the plaintiff with having in-
duced them to promise too high a rent by grossly misrepresenting
to them the average profits of the Theatre, of which they themselves
had been in ignorance, and by hob ling out to them expectations
which had never been fulfilled, and which the experience of former
years did not at all justify. The plaintiff, they stated, had the
custody of the books of the Theatre, or at all events such access to
them as must have enabled him to ascertain the precise ieceipts
and expenditure of the establishment, whilst on the other hand,
they did not enjoy the same opportunity, and of course, were
in total ignorance of the amount. The defendants also in-
sisted that at the time of their entering into the contract they
were not aware of the existence of a deed which had been ex-
ecuted in 1812 between all the then proprietors of the Theatec.
They stated that they never heard of this deed until proceedings
had been commenced respecting it in the Court of Chancery, and
a receiver appOinted to the Theatre. They therefore submitted;
that as the plaintiff was not able to fulfil the contract on his part,
the Court ought not to compel them to fulfil their portion of it.
The rent of twelve thousand pounds was promised under the im-
pression that they were to have the control of the Theatre, free
from the slightest interference, and yet a receiver had been put
over them, under an instrument which existed previously to their
entering into the contract in question, and they charged the plain-
tiff with being fully aware of its existence, and wilfully concealing
it from them ; and finally they urged, in opposition to the prayer
of the plaintiff's bill, that it would utterly ruin them if the Court
were to enforce the agreement which had been so made. Mr. Harris,
on the other hand, denied that the defendants had the means of in-
forming themselves as to the average profits of the theatre, and insisted
that the falling off of the receipts was attributable to the bad ma-
nagement of Mr. Charles Kemble, who had, by seeking to put
himself forward hs an actor, displaced others who were far more
competent to represent some of the characters which he-had ap-
propriated to himself. Some authority was wanting to interfere
between Mr. Charles Kemble, the manager, and Mr. Charles
Kemble, the actor. The Counsel for the plaintiff expressed the
greatest possible respect for Mr. Kemble, as a private gentleman,
and admiration of his professional abilities ; but, when he turned
round and said that the theatre had diminished in value, they
insisted on the right of charging him with being partly the cause
of that deterioration. They also stated that Mr. Kemble
had adopted the contract, and had, under the powers granted to
him by it, altered the interior of the theatre materially;
among other things he had removed what are called the " baskets,"
boxes in which, according to Mr. Sugden, the modest apprentice
was wont to hide himself, and seek retirement from the public gaze,
until he acquired sufficient confidence to expose himself in all the
glare of a front box. The plaintiff further urged, that the defend-
ants were not injured by the appointment of a receiver, as, in fact,
the gentleman who now acted in that capacity was the identical
person who had for many vears been their own treasurer, so that
the decree of the Lord Chancellor did nothing more than clothe
the individual with a new denomination. This is a short outline
of the arguments which have been used on both sides. They have
not yet concluded, and it is likely that the case will occupy the
Court at least another day. It has already been three days before
the Court.