The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-23 00:00:00

COVENT GARDEN THEATRE.

A new petit Comedy, entitled " Love and Reason," and
translated professedly from " Le 'Marriage de Raison," made
its first appearance here last night. It was very success-
ful, and numbered among its Dramatis Persona, the names
of Farren, Fawcett, Warde, Miss Jarman, and Mrs. Glover.
Want of space prevents us from entering into further de-
tails. We may, however, remark, en passant, that from
the sprightliness of its dialogue, the bustle of its incident,
and the pleasant simplicity of its plot, " Love and Reason "
bids fair to enjoy a long and merry theatrical life.

LAW INTELLIGENCE---(THIS DAY).

HOUSE OF LORDS.
SCOTCH APPEALS.

THE REV. DR. AULD, MINISTER OT THE UNITED PAlUsrf its
r AYR AND ALL' • AY, APPELLANT.-WILLI COWAN,
ESQ. PROVOST, AND THE DIAGISTRATES AND HERITORS

OF AYR, RESPONDENTS.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Second Division
of the Court of Session, in Scotland. The proceedings origi-
nated in an application by the minister of Ayr and Alloway,
to the presbytery, to allocate a manse for him. The presby-
tery acceded to the request, but the magistrates of Ayr, and
the heritors of the parish, refosed to abide by the judgment
of the presbytery, and brought it under the view of the Court
of Session, en the ground that they were not liable to pro-
vide the minister with a manse, inasmuch as the parish
was partly a Royal Burgh. The case came on before the
Second Division of the Court : and it was held by three
Members of the Court against two, that the Minister was
not entitled. From that decision the present appeal was
lodged, and it was argued to-day before the Master of the
Rolls, the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, Earl Spencer,
and Lord Carteret, by Sir John Connell and Mr. Keay for
the appellant, and by Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Ser-
geant Adams for the respondents.
When our reporter came away, Sir John Connell was
commencing his reply.

COURT OE CHANCERY.
DEACON V. DEACON.

Mr. lIEALD moved that an injunction granted by Lori
Eldon in March last, whersby Mr. James Cull had been
restrained from acting as manager and receiver of a large
brewery at Portsmouth, belonging- to the Deacon family
might be discharged, and that Mr. Wm: Deacon, on whose
application the injunction had been grantel, might be
ordered tc pay all costs attending the proceeding. The
learned counsel stated, that the papers in this case
had swelled out to a hulk almost beyond any thing
he had ever seen in cases of this kind, and the only
difficulty he had had was to separate the mass of
nonsense and trash that had been mixed up with what was
important ; but he meant to occupy the tin of the Court
only by adverting to a portion of the principal facts. The
principal mover here, was Mr. Wm. Deacon ; he and his
brother had carried on a brewery at Portsmouth, '
in partnership, for many years. On the death of
his brother, that brother left 20,0001. to be paid out of
the concern to his son James Williamson Deacon, or
1,0001. a year as long as the survivor chose to keep the
principal in the concern. For a-short time the 1,0001. a-
year was paid by Mr. W. D. ; upon his ceasing to keep up
the payment, Mr. J. W. D. made such a case to this
Court as induced it to appoint Mr. Cull, and Mr. W. D.'s
son, to be the receivers and managers of the brewery.
They continued in office from 1819 till March last,
when Mr. W. D. applied to the late Lord Chancellor
hir an injunction to restrain i\lr. Cull from further
acting or interfering with the concern until the further
order of the Court. The application was supported by the
applicant's affidavit, together with an accountant's sf the
name of Blske, and likewise one cf Mr. Minchin, an at-
torney. The learned Counsel had been schooled by Lord
Eldon, having been called to the bar just about the time at
which his Lordship took the seals, and from all he could
understand, he could net believe that, consistent with the
principles of his Lordship and the established rules
of this Court, the injunction could have been refused upon
the case then made, leave having been given as was usual
in such cases, for the party against whom the injunction
was directed, to appear as early as he pleased to have it
discharged. It happened that after the injunction was
granted the order got into one of the public papers (the
SUN Evening Newspaper), which was circulated exten-
sively at Portsmouth, to the great injury of Mr. Cull.
Whether orders made upon ex-parte applications ought to
be published in the newspapers or not, was a qia_st;on the
Leai•ned Counsel did not mean to trouble himself with. He
could conceive a case in which the publicity would be most
injurious ; fur if an ex-parte application (ex-parte meaning
secrecy) were made to restrain the cutting down of timber
the defendant might see the order in the public papers
before he could be served with notice, arid contrive to have
the whole of the timber felled before the notice of the order
could really be regularly served. This, therefore, made
the publication of ex-parte proceedings stand on different
grounds from those of a different nature. The publication in
the present instance had pressed heavily on Mr. Cull, and
therefore the Lord Char cellor was willing to hear his case as
soon as he chose to apply. The motion to dissolve the injunc-
tion was partly heard by Lord Eldon, but it was not heard
out, and having stood over till now, the affidavits had been
most enormously increased in number; but he (Mr. H.)
meant to confine himself to the three affidavits on which
the ex-parte application was made, and those filed in an-
swer to the statements made therein. The ex-parte case
(as may be seen by referring to our former reports of this
case) charged Mr. Cull with having made erasures in
t.a books, charged the estate with monies improperly,
and in other ways, misconducted himself. Mr. Cull's
affidavits now (said the Learned Counsel) completely
negatived the general as well as the particular charges, and at
the same time clearly supported the indisputable good con-
duct of Mr. C., and which the Learned Counsel was quite
prepared to read at length, but which he did not think ab-
solutely necessary. An anonymous letter, or rather a
letter signed " Mum," had been circulated among Mr.
C.'s creditor's, which had occasioned him to have been
arrested, and which letter had been since traced to tie
agent of the other side. It appeared too from the affidavits,
that if the whole brewery were to be sold at this
mot-ant, it would not produce sufficient to pay off
Mr. W. Deacon's caam, and tlia Mr. W. Deacon, though
the surviving partner and ostensible owner of the concern,
had not an atom of interest in it ; consequently Mr. H.
could not but believe, that when hie Learned Friends made
the ex-parte application, they were deceived as to the situa-
tion in which Mr. J. W. Deacon stood, otherwise they
never would have made the motion, without having in-
formed the Court that they were applying in the absence of
the individual mainly, and almost entirely, interested in the
business.
Mr. HEALD concluded at a quarter past one, when the
Chancellor said he was obliged to go away to attend a
Cabinet Council.—The further hearing of the motion NVLS
ordered for Saturday.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
LEIGH V. LEIGH.

This case, the particulars of which were reported in
the Sun when it was last before the Court, Lame on again
to-day, for the purpose of being re-argued.
Mr. SHADWELL and Mr. COLE were heard for the de-
fendants, and Mr. SUDDEN and M. TRESLOVE for the
plaintiff.
The Vrcrt-CitANcEnoß said that he saw no sufficient
reason for altering his former judgment. The plea of the
defendants must be overruled, and the plaintiff be allowed
to try his title to the estates of the late Lord Leigh in a court
of law.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
SITTINGS IN BANCO.
TAYLOR V. BRING.

This was a point arising out of the case of a Charter
party, which had been tried at the last Sittings at Guild-
hall. It appeared that a ship was chartered with bales of
cotton, from Alexandria to Liverpool. There was. also a
number of bags of cotton, and it was agreed by the Char-
ter that one of the parties should pay all quarantine duties
on the said bales. On the day after the Charter was
signed, one of the parties, in conjunction with the broker,
made a marginal note in the Charter, to the effect that the
bags of cotton should be considered bales. The plaintiff
refused to acknowledge the propriety of this insertion, or to
pay the fees chargeable on the bags of cotton ; and upon
this a trial took place, and a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff. Application was now made to set aside the ver-
dict, on the ground that both parties were liable to the
quarantine dues, as a copy of the Charter party was sent to
each, with the marginal note.
The COURT was of opinion that the plaintiff not having
signified his assent to the alteration, he was only bound to
adhere to the original Charter party. They therefore re-
fused to disturb the verdict of the Jury.