Star.
London, England, 1824-05-01 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT a CHANCERY, APRIL O.
THE OPERA-HOUSE.
Mr. HART moved for leave of reference to the Master,
to inquire whether it would not be fur the benefit of the
estate to continue Mr. Croft a Trustee, with an allow.
ance of compensation for l:is trouble in the management
of the estate? This application, though relative to a
Theatre, was not like those made on other Theatres ; it
had nothing to do with the internal management ; it
was only as to the duty of landlord.
Loan CnANCELLOR.—I am not aware of the nature of the thea-
trical management of those establishments, but I certainly know
that the judicial management uf them is a very difficult affair.
Mr. Scr.m.s, for the infants, declared his consent to the reference.
The Lorin CH.% At:F.Ll.oll.—This is a delicate thing ; I don't know
well whet to do. Trustees, who voluntarily undertake trust duties,
cannot get rid of them. A Trustee cannot be allowed compens4-
dun, except en the principle that it is fur the benefit of the rst,le.
Trustees may employ others and pa) diem out of the estate, bui
cannot take compensation fu: their own labour ; and Lord Thin low
was so well aware of this, he directed by his will, in express terms,
a compensation to be given to his Trustees.
31r. U.l7:ii:nv could no: ler this opportunity pass of mentioning
to his Lordship the charge made to the 'Trusters for the use of a
box in the opera.
Mr. R eomended that the charge was enormAus—}737B, as
he would pray.
The Lora inaNcrt-Lor..—llielieve you have gut into the wrong
box there, Mr. (fart.

111 r. IluLSe:.r said the charge was fair.
r.112.11T ;4?.e-rted that he would not be boxed about sn ; he wonld
defend his assertioa. The het sea:. Mr. Serjeant une (.4
the Trustees, occasionally visited a particular box on a trec tu_ket.
Tor 1.1)!;) CIIA9CEI Lo 6.— What tr.ll,ltlcSS 1143 a Strjeant at Law
at each i4ces as Theatres?
ia.lltl' could not deny that Serjeants, as well as
()act- Ise plr!, were often found in places where th.y
0;04t not to be; but he nnallt kite gone to the box
for a half guinea each time. and vet he was charged the
cc of an (mire box, T.:7SI. This was most exagge-
ated; it was a case of extreme hardship.
'nue LORD CIIANCELLOP, CCV.Id not deny that it was
something too much ; he would Icok at the papers, and
settle the affair to-morrow.
COURT OF KING'S
(int:AVIAN; WiIITMICAD.

This was an action against tl:c defendant, who is an
annuity-bioket, to recover the amount of certain sums
which had been advanced by him to a Clergyman named
Locke, upon two annuities, he having acted as plaintiff's
broker, and neglected to take' the necessary precautions
to ascertain whether his client (the plaintiff) might safely
advance his money to Mr. Locke. The facts sse,e, that
Mr. Locke, at the time the annuities were granted, viz.
in 1818, was deeply emba- rassed ; anJ that common
caution, used On the part of the defendant, would have
served to have informed him of these circumstances.—
Witnesses were now called to chew that at the time the
transaction took place, and that the plaintiff had ad-
vanced his money on the recommendation of the de-
fendant, Mr. Locke, upon an income of 15001. a-year,
had granted annuities to the amount of 12001. ; that
judgments were out against him wale amount of many
thousands; and that he had been thirty or forty times
arrested. It also appealed, that in 1819, he was in the
Fleet Ps ison, and, in the latter end of that year, a com-
mission of bankruptcy was sued out against him.
Mr. SCAIMETT having called witnesses to substan-
tiate these facts, _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury on
behalf of the defendant, and observed, that his Learned
Friend had introduced his client (the plaintiff) as a man
S 5 years of age, dead to the world; but how had his
Learned Friend proved that the plaintiff was altogether
dead to the world? Why, by s!,ewing that he had ad-
vanced his money on annuity, at the rate of 11 per cent.
Now, persons who thus s.str:,;lit to make extraordinary
profits, to get 11 per cent. instead of four or five per
Lent. were not over scrupulous as to the nature of the
security. As to the part v. hick his client (the deli-101;1:1
had taken in this transaction, he contended, that Mr.
Whitehead had taken every precaution in hi-, power to
ascertain that Locke's security was good.—The security
for this annuity was a living held by Mr. Locke, called
Hilgay. This living, which was a specific security for
the 7001: advanced by the plaintiff, Mr. Locke after-
wards, r.amel, 1822, was deprived of, in consequence
of some simoniacal contract into which he had entered ;
and, owing to this circumstance, and not to any embar-
'rassment of Mr. Locke's affairs, it was that the
plaintiff had lost his security. As to the embarrass-
ments of Mr. Locke, there could be no doubt but that
the plaintiff and his Solicitor (Mr. Lamb) must have
known of them before the transaction of the annuity ;
and that it was to the living of Hilgay, and not to any
personal responsibility of Mr. Locke, that they looked
for security.
The Rev. Charles Locke, son of the person who
granted the annuity, stated, that his father was, in 1816,
possessed of the Rectory of Hilgay, in Norfolk ; in
November, 1318, he resigned it, but held the advowson
till 1822. The living extended over about 8,000 acre:.
He had, besides this, the Curacy of Farnham, worth
about NO/. and also that of Sele, worth about 60!. He
also possessed a farm in Norfolk, and an estate at Whit-
more; at Farnham also he had some freehold property.
Witness also desci ihed other fr e...h01d property which had
belonged to his father. Witness had also seen letters from
agents to his father, on the subject of mine property.
Cr 0”-examined.—The rem of several of these estates
did not come immediately into his father's pocket, but
weca to pay interest of mortgages. His father was in-
' deb:ea 16,0001. to 1)r. Sou el. Does not know that the
income of the living of Ildgay was applied to pay the
interest of the 16,000/. Dia not know in the beginning
of ISIS that his tether was in difficulties. Mr. Locke
war; then residing at Farnham. Witness was at Farnham
in ISI ; recollects executions in the house; and once,
witness thinks, he recollects his father being arrested.
Dr. Hewlett is at present possessed of the living of
; had been since the beginning of 1819. Had
been glad to grant a lease of the tythes at 9001. si-; ear.
Independent of this, there wer e 89 acres of glebe, .snich
'loess let for 851. a-year. There was a house on the
tiring; but that had been made as it was by witness;
in 1818, the value was nearly double.
Mr. Locke r e-examined.—Don't recollect, on one oc-
casion, when an execution came into the house at Farn-
ham, presenting to the Officer an assignment to himself
of the living, and Ore:rt.:Mug to turn the Officer out..
Recellected something of an a .signment being given to
him by Mrs. Locke, just Inftne tire Officer arrived; but
had not looked in the inside.

The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE summed up, stating the
evidence to the Jury ; and putting it to them to say whe-
ther, on that evidence it could be said that the defendant
had exercised due camiun in advising his client.—The
Jut y found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages b9`24 Ts.

Mr. Waterman, of %V4.hingtou City, advertises an
invention by which a mau may talk-ou the water twelve
miles an hour.