Star.
London, England, 1813-07-27 00:00:00

LifW INTELLIGENCE.

.7

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY ea.
HAYMARKET THEATRE.
• MORRIS V. COLMAN. • •
The Loan CHANCELLOR this day gave his judg-
ment in this long pending cause, observing, that
finding no possibility of any accommodation or ar-
rangement between the litigating parties, after his
repeated but fruitless recommendation to them to that
effect, he should pet form his duty as well as in his
.power, upon a case that might be less injutedley fire
than by being brought into this Court. Pse thsech
bore elate on the 4th of June, 180.5, and was exe.
cu!ed by and between Mr. Morris, the 'plaintiff, who
v. as to Rave one share of the profits. Mr. Colman,
the defendant, a fourth, Mr. Winston, who was to
.have a fourth, and by Mr. Tahourdin, who was also'
to have.a fourth share of such profits. The first sin-
.guluity of this deed appeared to be, that while the
,profits. Were divisible into four shares, the concern, or
' property itself was divisible into three shares, or inte-
gral portions, one of which was Mr. Colman's, the
second Mr. Winston's and Mr. Tahourdin's, in equal
moieties copjointly, and the remaining share Mr.
_Morris's, so that there was a different rule by which
-the distribution of the fruits of the performances were
to be appropriated from the quantum of interest in
the respective owners.
'Mr. Colman was to perform the office of General
Manager, Mr. Winston that of Stage or Acting Ma-
nager, and all contracts with performers, as well as
• with mechanics and tradesmen, &c. &c. were condi-1
thmed to be entered into by a majority of votes, of
Which Mr. Colman was to have two, Mr. Winston
~and Mr: Tahourdin one between them, and Mr. Mor-
ris the remaining' vote. Mr. Morris subsequently
purchased the shate.of Mr. Tabourdin, by which he
claimed equal power with Mr. Colman, while the
latter contended for the ancontrouled right of con-
tracting with performers, dress-makers, and all other
apparatus requisite for the Theatre. It was stipu-
lated by the articles. that all matters of dispute or
difference between the parties, should be referred to
the arbitration of persons nominated, to avoid litiga-
tion—but it was the necessary consequence .of such
incomprehensible articles as had taken place, that liti-
getion almost ever since, as well as ill will, had sub.
Silted between the pinks. •
Mr. Colman, in one year. after the contract, was
committed to the Rules of the King's Bench, where
he still continues, unable personally to attend at the
Theatre, to superintendcertain duties required by the
articles, excel•: by Means of day rules in Trinity
Term only, there being no other Term within the
Season of the performances of this Theatre.
'Mr. Mortis, in 1809, filed his Bill, complaining,
that although entitled to his vote on every conference
and contract, he was only informed of the acts or ap-
, poinunents of Mr. Colman afid tir. Winston, after
they were passed.
The Bill prayed that Mr. Colman might be re-
moved from the management, and a specific per.'
formance of the articles decreed, according to the in.
tentions of the contracting parties, and 'a referents
Was directed to a Master to examine into all the cir-
cumstances of the complaint, and to frame such a
deed as would contain covenants to bind the panics,
and sustain actions at law fur breach of covenant.
The Master reported as directed, and among other
matters found that Mr. Colman vas competent fully
to discharge the duties, and had so done with ability
and great success to the rerformances all the time.
To this part of the Master's Report exceptiOns'
were taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, vhich had been
long standing unheard, owing to some informality
or irregularity attending them. Other motions were
made, pending the delay, and the Theatre remained
shut up.
Mr. Morris moved for liberty to open the house,
and to employ performers, without the assent of Mr.
Colman, who resisted all things, and would do no-
thing. His Lordship had been iaelined to grant
that motion in order to have the performances go on,'
until the hearing of the cause, which could noe be
until the present season be lost ; but the fresh allidat
vita of Mr. Colman' and Mr. Winston, were inter.
posed, stating that, in their judgment, it would be
more for the interests of the concern to keep the
Theatre wholly shut up for the °resent season, than
. let' Mr. Morris alone open it, from the bad name he
might bring upon it.
This motion was ordered to be renewed, as his',
Lordship clearly perceived that Mr. Morris was not
treated as a partner in any manner contrary to the
manifest intentions of the patties, so far his Lordship
threw out on this occasion on that head, and pro--i
•ceeded to discuss the merits et the various depositions
with great minuteness, contrasting the looseness of
the evidence of the plaiutiff's witnesses with the posi-
tive and dear depositions on- behalf of the defendant,
.stating his full capacity to act as general Manager,
notwithstanding his duress, which finding of the
Master his I.Urcldiip considered well founded, on rite
testimony laid before the Muter on the reference,
which appear to preponderate, nor could his present
judgment affect the Report at this period, the proper
mode having been neglected in the usual time.
The exceptions on which the cause came before
the Court were disallowed,' and the Master's Report
confirmed.—Judgment fur the Delondant.
His Lordship desired to hear the motion respecting
Opening theTheatre for this season to be brought on at
an early day, when
Mr Han. offered three terms, or alternatives, on
behalf of Mr. Colman, namely, to undertake, for
. sharing the .profits, if any, arising from the per-
formances of the season, with Mr. Morris, indemni-
fying him at the same time against any loss or risque,
to purchase the share of Mr. Morris in the concern,
or, lastly, to sell Mr. Colman's share of the Theatre.
these offers Bir SANHEL Rosettes( replied, that
.the first was offering nothing, and as to the second,
that it is difficult to expect money front one in 'Mr.
Colman's present situa then, and to the thirdithat some
people ,are net desirous 'Of selling,* aod refused the
offer.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, JULY 24.
MOUOEUDIX y. MUNP/IY.
•
This was an action to recover of the defendant sr:
- 'honey had and received, for the-plaintiff's use, under
the following circumstances. The plaintiff was a
seaman on board the Lady Castlereagh, and just pre-
• vious to his leaving this country on a voyage, the de.
leuciant cailed on hint, repreipincd himself• at a uavy

'agent, enquired if he wanted any money pret;ons to
his sailing, and offered to advance him some o* his
giving him an absent bond, by which he would be
entitled to receive his wages during his absence. The
Plaintiff accordingly gave' him a bond, and had £2
advanced to him ; and the defendant, during his ab-
sence, received £9 wages which became due to him.
The plaintiff, on his return, applied for the balance
coming to him, when the defendant said there was
nothing due, as the necessaries and money which he
had advanced were more than equal to the sum which
:be had received.

On the part of the defendant, it was proved that he
had furnished the, plaintiff with clothes, linen, and
shoes, and that since his return he had paid him
£2. Ss. in cash, which was all the balance coming to
him. Upon this evidence, the plaintiff's Counsel
consented to be nonsuited.