Star.
London, England, 1801-12-24 00:00:00

LAN INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 23:
DRURY-22Ni THEATRE.

The Soslctrosa;;;;lLAL laid ,that tl; having con.
fultcd with his Learned Friends, and conlideting
the peculiar nature of this cafe, and the fats which
his Client alone coeld be fully polfelfed of. it was
thnught moll expedient for Mr. Sheridan to reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid he war ready to
hear all parties.
Mr. SHERIDAN faid, if other claims.were to be
fet up, he hoped he might be at liberty to hear
all thole claims, and afterwards to comment upon i
them.
_ _

Mr. HOLLIST raid a few words on behalf of Mr.
Weiner.
The Lorin CHANCELLOR faid, he perfectly un-
derflood the cafe of Mr. Wifiley. An annuity
had been granted him by the Proprietors of the
Theatre on his ceafing to be Treafurer, by a deed
which was executed by Mears. Sheridan and Ri-
chardfon, but not by Mr. Grubb : it was contend-
ed that Mr. Grubb was effectually bound by that
agreement.
Mr. Priapism Ls laid, there was a petition call-
ing upon the Truftees to compel Mr. Holland to
complete his enntrad. The Trullees were under
nb contra& With Mt. Holland, nor could they
eater into any. With refpeft to the claim of Mr.
White, Mr. Sheridan had entered into an agree-
ment with him for pool. for the purchafe of his
claim. •
Mr. TROWIR, on behalf of Mr. White, laid,
there had been an agreement made by the Pro-
prietors of Drury.lanerheatte, to grant his Client
an annuity of 2501. per annum.
The LORD•CHANCELLOR afked how that agree-
ment was made
Mr. 'Nowa laid, with Mr. Linloy and Mr.
Sheridan, Proprietors of Drury-lane Theatre.
Mr. AGAR addreffed the Court on behalf of,
Mr. Grubb.
The Lotto, CHANCELLOR laid, there was one
umfideration he %sidled then to [fate. The pro-
pofals handed to him went to certain ads to be
done by the Proptictors ; upon the, therefore,
he could not decide till he knew who were the
Proprietors. He had received, he raid, a letter
from a perfon of the name of Gloffop, who
claimed to be a creditor to the amount of 60001.
for illuminating the Theatre. He thought it ne-
ceffary to fty, that he fhould confider every letter
font 'le 11;m in that way as a fpecch in Court. If
the leFtekle was admitted, duo the monies of the
The toe fhould become an accumulating fund, it
would gb farther in favour of thole claims againft
the fund than for a.
Mr. AGAR fail, there was no way of compel-
ling thofe having Papers in their poffedion to'con2
forward with the means of fubftantiating Mr.
"Grobb's claim.

The LI, RD Csavert.Lon bid, he was willing
to hear every thing that could be urged on all
fides, and having heard every thing, he fhould
come down on Saturday morning to pronounce

judgment.
Mr. AGAR, as Conflict for Mr. Grubb, whore

fituation he flitted to be peculiarly fevere under
the circum fiance of being denied to pollen the
partnerfhip which he had purchafed, while at the
fame time he Rood engaged for debts on account
of the Theatre to the amount of 40,0001. Was it
to be prefumed that Mr. Grubb would have come
forward and fubjeded his private property to :ilk
to Inch an amount upon any other account than as
a partner in the property ? The nature of the cir-
cumfiance alone, if there was no document to be
adduced in proof of the actual partnerfirip, would
be fuEficiently impreffive to call upon the wisdom
and difcernment of the Court to inflitute the fullefl
truptiry upon what ground it was that Mr. Grubb
should have been induced to folded his private pro-
perty to ft) extraordinary a silk ? He had enough,
however, to thew molt charly that his client's
claims asa proprietor had been amply and repeated-
)y acknowledged. It appeared by the affidavit of
Mr. Grubb, that an engagement had been entered
Into in the month of Auguil, :795, by which that
gentleman and Mr. Richardfon were to be entitled
each to oft -Patna, part of the Theatre, on paying
for two (hares zsod. each, the profits on which, at
this time, amounted on the part of his client to
nearly to,cool. He had not before him the oil-
girtal agreement, but he held in his hand a copy
of it, penned by Mr. Richardfon, and by which itl
appeared that Mr. Grubb was entitted to an u!ti•
mate interefi and beneficial ownerthip in the con.
cern. He was ready to admit that there was an
indorfement on the truft-deeds of :798, which
tended to guard the exclufive rights of Mr. Sheri•
; but this, lie contended, went to take out
only the leafebold interell in the premifes, and left
his client a full proprietor as far as his (hare went
in the patent, fcettery, machin:ry, &c. He ob-
fees cJ, that bids had been received and circulated
in the name of Isfeffrs. Sheridan, Grubb, and Ri-
ch-n(1(On, as proprietors of Drury-lane Theatre.—
it was to him a matter of alionifhnient, therefore,
that his client's demand to gland as a pinprietor
could' be refilled. it appeared from Mr. Grubb's
affidavit, that he had advanced money to the
amount of ro,oool. and that he was now Prevent-
ed from appearing before the Court, by other de•
snands upon him to the amount of 4o,oocl.—Mr.
Agar entered into a long diiquifition relpeaing the
j pi/lit:4loß of the motley received for private
boNes. Ile could not now compel an answer to
the ncetifary quellions; but he fliould certainly file
a bill next term for that purpofe. He doubted nu.
1,..r that ;l:e Court would decree his client to be a
prointcvn ; bur, is thi. ial:since, Mr. Crab!) wait
m..re anxious ft,r his creditors than for hitufell.
The 1.-tan C. 1.1%( Cl.tott laid, he could not dif-
cover, fi om the affidavit of Mr. Richardfon, whe-
ther he was a Proprietor or tiwt.
Mr. t:sid, he could hare no objcaii n
t.s. what was con. iiacei in arlid.ivitc, net he diti
Imi,e that ii Mr. .;hcr;jan thew I.l‘t any
in the Ipii it in winds I. tone ali,:rtiolis Lad
bet n t'f..,t they w‘ !del he cl)11!ilieltd as irrc-
L•varit, icaa that ita 1..).44.114 vout.:d
hiel io 1:V.:1