The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 24.

CHAMBERS' COMUISSION.-EX-PARTE DI SEGNI&

ilottNE stated the petition of Signoidi Begnis,
on whose behalf a former application had been mad(
to the Court respecting the Opera-house.. The pe•
titioner claimed to be a creditor of Chambers' estat(
for 1;700i., for salary due to hiritself and his wife to
performers at the King's Theatre ; and by reason of
the interest, which this claim gave him-in the affairs
of the theatre, he now applied that the assignee,
Might be restrained from taking upon themselves
the management for the ensuing season, which the
were about to 410. The petitioner had made at•
offer to rent the theatre at 8,0001. per annum, and
Mr. Ayrton, who had managed the orchestra for se-
veral years, had also made a proposition. The as-
signees had thought fit to reject, both these offers,
although it was obvious that the talent and expe-
rience of the persons who made them were much
more likely to -direct the theatre prosperously than
the assignees, who could know nothing about the
matter. The principal assignees, who were on
a sudden to become the managers of the
first theatre in .the metropolis, were men who,
however respectable, were disqualified by their
previous habits from knowing any thing about
such matters. One of them, Mr. Mayhew, was an
attorney,---probably he was a very proper attorney,
—but it did not follow that he knew any thing about
conducting a theatrr like the Italian Opera-house.
Another was,a Mr. Bernasconi, a 'plasterer, and he
could not be suspected of understanding operas ; at ,
least there was no palpable or obvious connexion
between plastering houses and superintending the
King's Theatre. Another gentleman was stated to
be an undertaker, and for• his • services, towards the
end of the season, indeed there might be some occa-
sion, unless the inevitable -result of the assignees'
mad project• sheuldbe averted by ,the interference of
his Lordship. The dissolution of the whole affair
was almost certain, and in that ease the gentleman
last alluded to would be the only .one of the impre-
sarj whose name would answer his calling. That
each of these gentlemen might not be diverted by the
cares of the opera from the valuable pursuits by
which they severally benefitted mankind at.present,
—that Mr. Bernasconi might plaster,—that Mr.
Mayhew might practice,—and that the other gentle-
man might bury, as they had severally been used to
do, this petition prayed that the property might he
sold for, the benefit of the creditors, er that it
might be leased to the petitioner or some other per-
son to be approved of by the Court, and that in the
mean time an injunction should be granted.
Mr. ROSE, on the same side, argued on the im-
propriety of suffering this theatre to fall into the
hands of the obviously incompetent • persons who
had proposed to take it. In mercy to them, no less
than in justice to the rest of the creditors, he sub-
mitted they ought to be restrained.
Mr. SUGDEN appeared in behalf of the assignees,
and contended that neither the petition, nor the
arguments of counsel in support of it, had, made out
any case for the interference which was prayed. A
meeting of the creditors had been called, which was
attended very numerously, and by creditors whose
debts reached a very large amount, and the persons
then present expressed their perfect confidence in
the assignees. But if there had been no such meet-
_ _

ing, his-Lordship-knew,very- well that the claimants
upon the Opera-house property were so numerous,
and so large in amount; that they watched its inte-
rests with the greatest jealousy, and would not.si-
lently permit any thing to he done which might im-
pair their' security. If there had been any real
ground for this application, would it be, believed
that a largebody of creditors, whose debts amounted
to 300,0004,—f0r that was the amount under , the
commission,—would have left the protection of their
interests to the single arm of Mr. di Begnis. The
fact was, that although that gentleman chose to pre-
sent himself to •the Court as the ehanipion of
whole body of cred i tors,his object was merely to accom-
plish a plan which had already been distantly hinted at.
Mr. di Begnis wanted to be manager himself. The
assignees had some objections to him. Perhaps the
security he offered was not to their taste—perhaps
his being an alien was an obstacle ; but, at all events
they rejected his proposition. He then turned
upon them, and had tried this very notable
scheme
for forcing them into his terms. He round
con-
tended that the property of the creditors was very
Well taken care of, and much better, according to
the opinion of the mass ofcreditors, in the hands of
the assignees, than of those persons who wishQd to
supersede them.
The LOIM CHANCELLOR said he had looked over

all the affidavits, and did not find in theio-thatany
improper motive was imputed to the assignees, or

that their conduct Lad been, in any degree, opposed
to the interest of the creditors. The petition was

by a single creditor, who was besides in the light of
a rival candidate with the assignees for the manage-
ment of the theatre. Taking the whole of the cir-
cumstances into consideration, and particularly the
time which au inquiry must,-necessarily consume, he
thought, it better to dismiss the petition.
Some question arose as to the costs, which the
Lord Chancellor eventually ordered to bp paid out
of the estate.

COURT OF KING'S. BENCH, Nov. 24.
THE KING V. eYkrr.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY .mentioned to the Attorney-
General that in ,this case, which came before the
Court on Monday last, the Court had entertained a
doubt whether the evidence 'given at the trial fixed
the defendant as the man who had struck the light
upon the beach. He had since that time seen Lord
Chief Justice Best, who tried . the case ; and his
LOrdship had informed him that evidence unques-
tionably did fix the defendant as the person who
committed that act. He mentioned this case to the
Attorney-General at present,. as he understood that
the defendant was a very poor man, and was wait-
ing for the judgment of the Court here in London
at considerable expence. It would, perhaps, be as
well that he should be brought up here for judgment
as soon as possible.
The ATTORNEY,OENERAL thought that it , was
' settled that the defendant should attend to receive
the judgment of the Court on Monday next.

THE, KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE RIGHT
HONOURABLE RICHARD BUTLER, EARL OF GLEN-

GALL,. V.- RICHARDS.

of Tthhee
CAoTuTrOt RoNnEYR-GicrarFd:RADLoNnlynOiVne the
gd judgmentßichards,the
defendant in this case, convicted of publishing a
libel against the noble prosecutor in a Sunday news-
paper entitled the 4ge.
The defendant, who had been brought up from
the King's Bench prison by Habeas Corpus, was
then placed cm the floor of the Court.
Lord Chief Justice TENTERDEN read his notes of
the trial of the information filed against the de-
fendant, from which it appeared that he was found
guilty of a libel which appeared in the Age of Sun-
day, October 29, 1826.
Mr. BROUGHAM for the defendant handed up an
affidavit to which his client had been previously
sworn.
It was read by the officer of the Court, It stated
that he had been 'convicted on the 11th of June
last, upon the information filed against him by the
Right Hon. the Earl of Glengall, and that he had
been confined ever since within the walls of a prison.
It disclaimed all malice on his part against the noble
prosecutor, asserted that he was not the author of
the libel mentioned in the information, and declared
in the strongest terms his contrition for having been
led to insert it on the authority of an anonymous
correspondent, in the Age Sunday paper, of which
he was then the editor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL put in three affidavits
on the part of the prosecution.
Lord TENTERDEN postponed the sentence of the
Court upon the defendant, until inquiry was made
whether there was other case but this on which
the defendant had been detained so long in custody.

MAYOR OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME.

On the motion- of Mr. CAMPBELL, a rule was
granted to show cause why an information in the