The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-04 00:00:00

•
• -0'
LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
J UDC 31 ENT.-- COVENT GA IME THEATE.E.

CONST V. HARRIS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. gave judgment to-day in this
case, in which the plaintiff Mr. Const, complained that
the deed of 1812 had been departed from, and its pro-
visions infringed. By that deed certain chargt and debts
were to be paid out of the rents and profits of the theatre
in a certain cause. Mr. Coast complained that the pro-
ceeds of the theatre had been applied by the defendants in
a different manner, end that they had altogether neglected
the provisions of the deed. Upon this state of thinge
Mr. Const filed his bill, praying certain inquiries might
be directed, accounts taken, and an order made for the
sale of the property. When the case came before the
Master of the Rolls, Iris Honour directed that the
Master should enquire whether any of the debts
enumerated in the schedule remained unsatisfied,
and to what extent; whether any of the profits and rents
of the theatre, which were applicable by the provisions
of the deed of 1812, to the discharge of certain debts, had
been misapplied, and in case the Master should find la
favour of the misapplication, by whom that misapplication
had been made, and whether that had taken place by the
acquiescence of the parties to the deed of 1812. From
these inquiries the parties had appealed. His Lordship
considered, as far as the question turned upon the misapplica-
tion of these funds and the infringement of the deed of 1812,
these inquiries would enable the Court to decitl,. the whole
question arising on the case. That being his impression
he could come to no other decision than that the Master of
the Rolls was perfectly correct in directing the inquiries
he had done. But it was said that a direction ought to
have been made for the sale of the whole property. Look-
ing at the circumstances before him in the present case,
his Lordship thought there was not sufficient to justify the
Court in directing a sale of the property—nothing to sa-
tisfy his mind that such a course ought to be adopted. The
'Court was clearly, of opinion that the present inquiries
should be proceeded with, because from their result pro-
bably an end might be put to the proceeding► entirely, and
ordered the judgment of the Master of the Rolls to be con-
firmed, with 101. costs.

COST V. lIARRTS.
Mr. PEPTS presented a petition from Messrs. Kemhle,
Willett, and Forbes, praying that a sum of 19,000/., now
in Court, might he paid out to meet the expellees of the
theatre. The petition further prayed, that if this order
was refused, that the sums of 1,100/. and 2,000/. might be
paid, besides the rent due to the Duke of Bedford.
This was opposed be the Solacrron-GENanAr. and
Mr. JAIVIcs, on behalf of Mr. Harris, and by Mr. HoaNE
and Mr. BtcxERSTETII for Mr. Coast. They all" how-
ever agreed that the rent should ha immediately paid out
of the fund to the Duke of Bedford, together with the
costs of ejectment brought by his Grace. After a pro-
tracted argument,

The Lonn CHANCELLOa made an order fir the pay-
ment of the rent, and said before he pronounced his judg-
ment. on the other parts of the petition, he should carefully
read over all the papers.

VICE.CHANCELLOWS COURT.
EVEREST V. WARE.
The Court was engaged the whole morning with thi
part-heard appeal, which does not possess any public in
to rest.