The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-12 00:00:00

YARLAND 2.% YARLAND.

Mr.
mission to make a short motion, we understood him to say
in Yarland v. Yarland.

Mr. WAKKFIELD appeared to oppose the motion.
His Lonostitr.—'Wednesday will be the day for motions,
_ _

Mr. said it was most important that he should
have the opportunity of making the motion now.
His LORDSHIP-4 can't help that; the Court broke up
on Wednesday last at one o'clock, because there was no
GentNinan here prepared to make a motion.

Mr. WAKEFIELD considered this an important motion;
it was for a receiver, a❑d would take some time.

His LORDSIIIP—* hy was not notice of the motion given
for last Wednesday ?
Mr.
of it for that day, because the injunction bad not been ob-
tained till Tuesday.

His Loansuir—Thpn I can't help it ; it must stand till
the next Seal, for I will not interrupt the hearing of the
Appeals now. It would be very much for the conve-
nience of the bar, as well as the Court, to have precise days
appointed for particular business ; it would prevent the
necessity of having to read papers twice over. If we lay
down a rule, we must adhere to it as much as possible.
__ . .

Mr. HEALD believed the fact to be, that until about the
time at which the Vice-Chancellor was appointed, it had
been the practice for the Lord Chancellor to call on Counsel
to make their motions on a certain day of the week at one
o'clock, but it would be most inconven:': if motions were
to be called on in that /tray now, and disposed of whether
in the presence or absence of all parties, the practice having
been very much changed since the Vice-Chancery had been
instituted.

Ibis Lomositir—Well, we will adhere to the practice that
has now been laid down, till we find it produces an
inconvenience.

IN THE RATTER OF THE SUITORS.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL presented a petition, which
prayed that the payment of the salaries of the Master of
the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor might he ordered to he paid
out of the Suitors' Fund.—Prayer granted.
ARRANGEMENT for the DISPOSAL of BUSINESS
in the LORD CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

The following notice lvas posted in the Court today :
During the present Term, the business of the Lord
Chancellor is arranged as follows :
On MONDAY.—Seven Appeals.
TUESDAY.—Ditto.

WEDICISDAY.—Urgent applications in Lunacy at the
sitting of the Court, Motions, and three Appeals.
TULTREDAY and FRIDAY the Lord Chancellor sits in the
House of Lords.

SATURDAr.--lirgent applications in Bankruptcy at
the sitting of the Court, and Seven Appeals.—But
the Lord Chancellor will positively entertain no appli-
cations on lunacy on the Wednesday, unless the pro-
per papers for iris Lordship's perusal shall have been left
with his Lordship's secretary of lunatics on the Monday
preceding ; nor in bankruptcy on the Saturday, unless the
proper papers shall in like manner have been left with the
secretary of bankruptcy on the Thursday preceding.
His LORDSHIP intimated that on Friday next he should
sit here, as Lord Eldon would on that day sit in the House
of Lords.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
FANNING V. REA R DON.
Mr. St GDEN was proceeding to make an application on
the part of the plaintiff, for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from transferring to his own credit a very large
amount of stock now standing to the credit of the cause of
Hill v Reardon, which it will be in the recollection of our
readers, was for a considerable length of time pending before
the late Lord Chancellor, and whi oh terminated very recently
in the dismissal of the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff, by
whom the present bill was filed, now claims one-third of
the fund in question ; and the object of the application was
to impound the stock, until his right shall be determined,
Whilst the Learned Gentleman was addressing the Court,
Mr. Fox BLA NQUE entered, and informed his Honour, that
he had applied to the Lord Chancellor this morning to hear a
motion in the same cause, and that his Lordship, -in re-
fusing to entertain them, intimated a wish that all the
proceedings should be suspended until Wednesday next.
The VICE CHANCELLOR accordingly directed the matter
to stand over.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
SINCLAIR V. REHBLE AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this case is the celebrated vocal perfor-
mer, and the present action was brought against the de-
fendants, who are the managers of the Covent Garden
Theatre, to recover compensation in damages for a breach
of contract. The cause was tried at the last Sittings at
Westminster, before Lord Tenterden, and a verdict found
for the plaintiff. The facts were shortly as follow ;.....

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the
defendants, to play at the theatre for fifty nights,
during the season 1824-5, at 201. per night. The plain-
tiff was in Scotland when he entered into the engagement,
and was informed by the defendants that his presence would
be required in the first week of October, 1824, to take a
character in the Opera. of " Der Freischutz," which was
then brought forward for the first time ; but from an en-
gagement the plaintiff had at Carlisle, he was unable to be
in London till the 15th of October, after the Opera
had been acted. The defendants then told him,
that es he did not come in time, they were obliged
to engage another gentleman to perform his part,
and therefore they did not consider themselves bound to
the engagement; but, in order to oblige him they would
employ him as often as they could, at the same rate, viz.
20/. a night. On the faith of this promise, the plaintiff
abstained from engaging elsewhere ; but he was so seldom
employed by the defendants, that he conceived they had
not fulfilled their promise, and therefore brought the pre-
sent action. The Chief Justice, at the trial, left the Jury
to decide whether, under all the circumstances, the plaintiff
was employed a reasonable number of nights, and, if not,
to award as much damages as they should think reasonable.
Under this direction, the Jury found for the plaintiff, as
already stated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL on a former day obtained
a rule to show cause, why a new trial should not be grant-
ed, on the ground that as no specific number of nights was
agreed upon, his Lordship had misdirected the Jury.
Mr. F. POLLOCK this day appeared to chew cause
against the rule. He contended, that his Lordship's
direction was perfectly correct. He conceived it quite
clear,that if the plaintiff could have anticipated that he should
have been so seldom employed, he would have engaged else-
where, and therefore the Jury were the only Judges of the
reasonableness of the treatment received by the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reiterated his former argu-
ments, and

Lord TENTERDEN, after conferring with his Learned
Brothers, said, that under all the circumstances, if it should
meet the approbation of Counsel on both sides, he thought
the ends of justice would be best answered by allowing the
plaintiff to make such amendments to his declaration as
he should think fit ; the expences of the former trial and
of the amendments to await the result of a new trial.

Mr. POLLOCK had no objection to this arrangement.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (though he had no instruc-
tions on the point) had no doubt, from the spirit of ac-
commodation evinced by his clients, that they would not
object.