Star.
London, England, 1824-01-23 00:00:00

COVENT-GARDEN Tll EATE E.•-•-GONST V. DA REIS.

His LORDSHIP did not mean to pronounce any final
judgment in this case to-day, although he wished fo
make some observations upon it. The bill filed was,
calling upon the Court to compel the specific perform-
ance of certain articles entered into in the year 1812;
and the motion in. the cause now standing fur judgment
was, praying to have 'a manager and receiver of the
Theatre appointed, that the profits might be applied ac-
cording to the terms of that deed of 1812. Of all the
persons that could be thought of to manage a Theatre,
undoubtedly, the Chancellor of England must be con-
sidered the most unfit; and he (the Learned Judge)
could only say, that in his own mind he felt petlectly
satisfied, that the deed set up in defence, dated 1822, as
being a deed to which Mr. Const hid acceded, though
not by contract yet by conduct, with respect to new ar-
rangements among the parties, could not stand. When
the discussion of the motion was closed, a proposition
had been made by Mr. Const to take a rent for his pro-
portion at the same rate at which Mr. Harris's had been
rented, and which was then refused ; but if they knew,
as well as the person then addressing them, the ruinous
consequences that would mixt certainly be the result of
the interference of this Court to all.parties, they would
not hesitate to reconsider that refusal. In a word, he
could assure them that, if they compelled him to make
an order, in less than four-and-twenty hours afterwards
they would most sincerely lament it; and that, unless
they did settle it between themselves before this day
week, if he lived he \vould make a decree. The parties
were not to be deceived with the notion that becatise a
decree must necessarily be mischievous, that therefore
the Court would not make one; the Court had no right
to say or to think, that any decree the law of the land
called for would be mischievous, still it might more
readily occur to the Court than to parties, that in some
eases, and particularly in this one, the consequence would
be in some respects, most mischievous; and therefore
his Lordship earnestly recommended a settlement be-
tween the parties out of Court.
Mr. JAMES thought that Mr. Harris-ought to have
been made a party on the record to this motion ; he was
willing to come in, and wished to have that opportunity,
for he was quite able to make affidavit to prove Mr.
Const's accoiescertce to the deed of 1822.
His LORDSIIIP observed, that he certainly was most
unwilling to act on the stage of a Theatre; but if he
was in existence on this day week, he would decide upon
the state of the record as it now stood, to the best of his
judgment, if matters were not settled before that time.
GOURLAY V. THE DIME OF aoscensitr.
The defendant obtained time to look at the Judge's
notes of the past trials, and also at the plans, with a
view to file affidavits in answer to the affidavits that
had been filed.
The COURT then proceeded with ix-parte Grimstead in
the matter of Howard and Gibbs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 22.
The four Judges sat this day in the chamber adjoin-
ing the Sessions House, to hear Term questions in arrear.

PHILLIPS D. Dl PISTOLS.
The question in this case was, whether •the defendant,
an Italian jeweller, had become bound to take a pair of
brilliant ear-rings knocked down to him at a public sale
by the plaintiff for eighty-eight guineas. The defendant
had bid only by a nod, and, immediately after the ear-
rings bad been knocked down, repudiated the contract.
He alleged that he had meant four guineas, and that
he had believed them to be rubies, but found them to
be Athenian garnet.
The Jury had found the defendant liable to pay, as
having completed the purchase.
Mr. SCARLRTT had afterwards obtained a Me to shew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
nonsuit entered.

Mr. GURNEY now shewed cause, and contended, at
some length, that the sale and delivery were completed.
The defendant was proved to be a thorough judge of
jewels. The ear-rings had not been described in the
bill of sale as rubies, but as 4, a pair of superb brilliant
ear-rings." The defendant had looked at them pre-
viously to the biddiog,and had distinctly bid 88 guineas.
Mr. COMYN argued at some length, that there was no
delivery. The defendant could not speak English ;he
spoke Italian only; his French was bad. There was a
case of a horse knocked down at a sale, but the bidder
refusing to pay a deposit of five pounds, it was decided
that there had been no delivery; a deposit had been re-
quired by the conditions of sale, and the defendant at
once refused to pay deposit or accept delivery.
Their LORDSHIPS gave their opinions seriatim, and
unanimously made the Ride absolute for a nonsuit, but
without costs, and with an intimation that there was no
evidence to exempt the case from of the Statute of Frauds.