Star.
London, England, 1801-11-11 00:00:00

HOLLIS.

rlie flop
the Ilon-

Svrra

Melds, is

or',o".

C:t co

anew
r 'cf.,

it boat's

n Hull to
iQxnd of
rc of duc

1 to Gib-
iy perfort
by tome

Virginia,

o Egypt,
into Al.

rt to Lot.
Livcd
&,11Lft•
mtinGutli

F2A4lto
120 mns

r

hir..Capt.
f Jre 1.4i1-
he fellow-

id,
tition, tor
4m,
:Uplit2lCS

m.. A:.
At i'nrtC
iAI

Ily;lig at

of j 6 OW.

In,. Captabi

Ps, ( splAill

Eum, Cll7

of 64 rool.l

tisc hu-bout

LA* INTELLIGENCE.

bAURY-LASE TNF6TRF•

CCURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 12.

, Motinn came on to-day before the Cit•xcitt•
Inito
in which Meffrs. Hammerfley and Co. wen.
t le Plaintiffs,
and Mr. Sheridan, Defendant, rda
'
to e management of Driiry.lane Theatre.
n that the cafemay be clearly compreliende,:
(air Readers, as it was rather intricate, by tWI
.aides Lying blended in the argument, it may not
he improper to (late a few fads which appeared
daring the courfe of the difcuflion, as preliminary
mater--When Drury-lane Theatre was rebuilt,
thotc were 300 New Renter's (hares created for
5oo• each, I for each of which (hares the holder
wa, entitled to an atnuity of 2s. 6d per night,
doing each night of performance, for a term of
to; years, By a deed executel in 5793, Meffrs.
Hammerfley, Wallace, and Ford, were appointed
Truftees for thefe Renters, and a fum of 401. per
:light was to be paid to them, for th.t purpofe of
co"-ering the refit dde upon thefe !hares.
Jo the year 1796, it became necclTary to borrow
more money for the fini(hing of the Theatre, and
37 new rent charges of tl. each per night, were
created, Which fold for 20001. each, and t z other
sr.nuities of 501. a year. Of thefe Renters Mr.
Hammerfley was alfo the Trace, by deed between
bi»t nil one part, and Meffrs. Sheridan, Grubb,
and Richardfon, on the other part.
The forty pounds per night refereed by the deed
cf 1793, to be paid to Hammerfley, as Truftee
for the Renters of the nightly 2s. 6d. rents, not
bong paid, a bill was filed again(( Mr. Sheridan,
in March 1799, the prayer of which was, that an
account of the produce of the Theatre from De-
ceinber 1798 might be taken, and that in the
mean time it fhould be referred to the Mailer to
appoint a Receiver, who fhould take all the pro-
cseds of the Theatre, to be applied according to
the intent of the truft deed of 1793. This fuit pro-
duced a negdciation between the partie', which
ended at 14a in an agreement between Ford and
Fammerfley on the one part, and Sheridan on the
other, bearing date the 21ft of February 18ot, by
which it was agreed, that Ford and Hammer-city
fhould appoint two perfons to receive the whole of
the money et:Melted at the Pit door, in trufl, firfl
to pay the falaries of fuck receivers; next to retain
forty-five pounds each night to pay the arrears due ,
to Renters, and to fecure a fund for future pay-
'
stunt ; and after that was done, to pay the furplus
to Mr. Sheridan at the end of an- year. If the Re- ,
c.'ieer appointed by them received any moLftation
or hindrance, then it was to be lawful to the Trilf
tees to apply to the Court further to appoint a Re-
ceiver. This agreement was made an order of
Curt on Coe 6th of March following, by compact
between the parties.
A fuhfequent bill was alto filed by Hammerfloy,
as Trace, under the deed of 1796, againft She-
ridan, Grubb, and Richardfon, in which he had
obtained a fimilar order to receive the proceeds of
the box doors, in tiara, after payment of the Rent-
ers, and next of a dim of money due to himielf,
that he fhould pay the furplus to Sheridan, Grubb,
and Richardfon.

s'ne Receivers bf the pit door were appointed
by Metes. Ford and Hammerfley, by virtue of
the agreement of the 25th of February 18c r, and
the Order of Court founded thereon on the fubfe-
cuent 6th of March, who continued in their office
until October laft, when they were removed by
Mr. Richardfon, who claimed to be jointly bite-
:eft:3 with Mr. Sheridan, and in confequence of
that removal, agieeably to the latter claufe in the
agreetnent, thc Plaintiffs now moved the Court to
have a Receiver appointed under their authority.
On the other handt Mr. Sheridan oppofed this mo-
tion, by giving notice of an intention to have a
counter motion, that both thole orders fhould be
difeharged. It was in that (hope that the matter
Low came on to be argued before the Cassia ctos.
Mr. MANSFIELD and Mr. Fotista ago e, as Coup-
fel for the Plaintiffs, contended that Mr. Sheridan
could tint oppofe the motion with any probability
cf fueeefs, as it was founded upon an agreement
to which he was party, and had given his exprefs
erment ; and the fubfequent order of Court had!
alto his concurrence. There could not tither
lc any doubt but that the /plaintiff had full right
to male the prefent motion, as the Receiver had
been diflurbe.i from doing that which it was
ngrced he (hould do, namely, take the ninnies of
Cu: Pit door. With refped to Meths. Grubb and
kirhardlon, they were parties in another caufe,
Ninth was no way conneded with the prefent
motion. It was true that on the t ith of June
rhos, an order was made in that mite, funilar
to the one in the former, placing the proceeds of
the Box doors in Mr. Hammerfley's hands, but it
did not do away the former Order, though Mr.
V.trislan in his affidavit affeded to confider that
it slid ; but upon reference to that Order it would
be found, that the words were inferted, 4, if
Ford and Hammerfley thould content
e.tretu." With refpeil to the affidavit of Richard.
fel, complaining of the hardfhip of the order of
Ctit March—the two orders had tin connedion,
and it was mofl beneficial for the intereft of all
;eat:izs, that a receiver fhould be appointed, who
ald regularly pay thc performers, the Renters,
• parties interefted. The prefent Treafiner
• ;!!•t even be the perfon ; then the Theatre
;!.I go on juft as it did at prefent, except that the
:..y would find its way into the right pockets.
Socierros GENERAL, for Mr. Sheridan,
Lod, that the only queflion would be, Whether the
b tickers, after having received foflicient to cover
demands of the Renters, for whom they
•••••:e Trultees, Ihould be ftifiered to accumulate
4%! fill plus in their own hand:, at the rifque of to-
' deilroying the proc.rty, v:ithout any fern.
Place of reafon or pretence. The °Lied of the
def. 1793, was to secure that to be tirft done
1...41i was molt important to be done ;11 the Pay'
of Reuters (hares and falaries. The Bill filed
I" carry the intent of that deed into execu-

And it teemed 'cry Ikrange that the fable-
.ol:nt order, without reference to the Bill, thottld
ne thofc objeds to any other con'ldetation.
...ndcr the elect!, Sheridan was entitled to the

farii:tts, with no right of detainer; bOt by the
"rder lie was not to receive it until the end of the
t::tfon. It was not due to thole who received the
s. 6d. per night, for they had the benefit of the
451. per night, and the futplus of ten or twelve
thoufand pounds was applicable to the fervice
of the Theatre. The Learned Counc..:l then read
.t letter horn Mr. Troward, Solicitor for the plain-
tiffs, id which he propoled the. appointment of a
;Zeceivcr to Mr. Sheridan, Bating, that the furplus
was to be paid " To his order." To this Mr. Sheri-,
Jan agreed, btit when the draft came, the whole
Man was altered, and they propofed to lock up the
furplus from him until the end of the fealon.—
Mr. Sheridan remonffrated, hut was informed,
that unlefs he contented, the Conn would be
moved the next day to appoint a General Re-
ceiver. As this would have been produdtive of
run to the Theatre, he was induced to liven the
agreement as it flood. With retpal to the order
of the II th of June, that was made in another
caufe, the Bill of which prayed for a General Re-
ceiver to fecure the trulls of another deed of 1798,
by which a debt of to,oool. was fecured to Mr.
Hammerfley, Mr. Sheridan contented to the lat-
ter order, under an idea that the oppreffive part
of the former order would be done away, which
übJe& moll certainly he had not obtained.
The LORD CH ANCF LLOR faid, he could not fee
what objeCt Metrrs. Ford and Hammerlley had in
view in int-ailing to demand the monies of the
Theatre, alter a fum was obtained fufficient to pay
the Renters. If any thing was undertaken by the
Troll Deed of t 793, it was the payment of the
Perlot :nets, and he did not fee how any body could
hold the monies arifing from the Theatre againtt
the demands of the Performers.

Mr. MAN sritin laid, the Trull Deed only re-
lated to the poireilion of the Theatre.
The Loan CHANCELLOR Paid, the Trull Deed
appeared to him to apply to the regulation of the
concerns of the Theatre, and he thought no one
could take the monies until the Performers were
paid. It right be a quellion whether the Mana-
ger of a Theatre was not to be confider eel as the
Agent fur all parties, and perfonally refponfible ?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL proceeded.—The
whole receipts of the Proprietors of the Theatre
during the prefent kafon, for their own private
purpoles, had been, he laid, only zcol. which they
had not only paid back, but alto 7301. more, ralted
by themielves. There could not be a doubt that
the horn ietors ought to have the means of
uif-
lying the nightly and weekly demands of the Per
tamers, and the immediate wants of the Theatr7.
The motion that had been made on the part of
Meas. Ford and Hammerfley went to lock up the
greaten part of the receipts of the Theatre, to take
tt out of the hands of the Prom ietot s, and not only
to take away flout them alt the means of controul
over the concerns of the Theatre, but to preclude
tliem nom the pollibility of at alt carrying on the
beard's of the Theatre ; and if the order of the
ith June was enforced, the 'Fileatre could not oaa
on. That the objofl of Meas. Ford and Ham-
me-fle) 's application to the Court, was completely
inimical to the intereils of the Renters, was evi
dent. The Renters were intitled to zs. 6d. for
every night of performance, but only for thole
nights on which any performance took place ; it
was therefore clear, that ifthe monies of the Thea-
tre were taken away, the Proprietors rendered un-
able to pay the neceatry expences of the Theatre,
and its Exchequer Ihut up, that TIO performance
could take place, and the interea of the Renters
mull be completely defeated. Meflis. Ford and
Hammerfley were in the undifputed nightly receipt
of 451. from the Pit, and 831. front the Boxes,
making together 1281. which amounted, in the
courfc of the feafon, taking it at 200 nights, to the
fum of z 5,6001. whin' they were not called upon
to pay the Renters until force time after the termi-
nation of the feafon. Yet not contented with this,
they wanted to,ocol. or 1 z,oool. more, without
being able to Rate any pnrpofc whatever which
could junify fuch a claim, or chew any object to
which the money was to be applied. He therefore
hoped the Court would allow the order to be dif-
charged.
hr. Prfror addrefTed the Court on the fame fide.
He flitted, that there were 300 Rent charges upon
the Theatre, at 2S. 6d. per night each, amounting
to 3.1. ros. per night, and that Mr. Sheridan had
contented that Nleffrs. Ford and Hammeriley lhould
receive 71. tos. in addition to that fum, far info-
ranee and contingencies, making in the whole 451.
per night, which !skins. Ford and Hammerfley
had conaantly received. Suppoling the receipts of
the Pit to average one hundred pounds per night, it
would amount to twenty thouland pounds in the
feafon, of zoo nights ; the fum taken by Meiru c.
Ford and Hammeriley out of this, at 451. per night,
amounted to wool. and they now wanted to take
the remaining z r,oool. and fwecp away, as it were,
the whole property.
TheLORDCHANCELLoa anted who were the Pro-
prietors of the Theatre on the 6th elf March r Sol
Mr. Picor raid, Meas. Sheridan, Richardson,
and Grubb.
Mr. Kansa:ELl, denied this, and laid, he be-
lieved Mr. Sheridan to have been at that period
the only Proprietor, becauk Mr. Sheridan had,
in his Anfwcr to the Bill tiled in that Court, not
Rated any other perfun to be Proprietor betides
himfelf.
Mr. Placer laid, it had not been attempted to
be controverted that Mr. Richardson and Mr.
Grubb were Proprietors of the Theatre. The fur-
,
plus of the monies, after paying rent and arrears
were, it appeared by the conitruelion of the order,
to be fubjc& to the order of the Court, but was
he to be told, that in confequence of this, Mr.
Sheridan could pay the Performers? If the Per-
formers were not paid, the Theatre mull he (hut :
and would any one that fay Mr. Sheridan could
touch a curie finning of the shOC3I. %Sikh would
be thus loCked up in the hands of the Bankers? The
Mot;on made on behalf of Mars. Ford and Ham-
medley was, he laid, unexampled.
The LORD CHANCELLOR walled to know how
fome part of the monies received by Mei-rs. Ford
and Hammes-Bey, exclulive of the 451. was to be
applied
ask. P,aor (aiJ, thcle was tcl. fcr the Duke of

Bedfbrtt's Rent : 31.. for 6ocl. advanced ; and 471.
los. for tl.e iI. itLaters' Shar,:s.

ANL It :11i.% he had experien•
red with refpea to the Opera Houle, and other
places of that defeription, that it was impotlible
to make all the perfons intereffed parties. That
Court was incompetent to manage a Theatre, it
could only make an crdcr to regulate the int-mils
of all parties, fo htr as known. It appeared by
the correfpondence between Mr. Sheridan and
Mr. 'Froward, that the former had given his con-
tent to an order which fhould make provilion for
the payment of the Renters' Shares, and of the
furplus to himfelf. Mr. Sheridan had afterwards
conftrued the order according to this intent, in the
way in which he Lindell; or any other perfen,
would have conflincd it, according to the princi-
ples of jullice and tquity. It was perfealy jolt
that there Mould be an accumulating fund to an-
Iwo- the demands of the Rent chargers and the le-
veral fums of 101. 471. los. and 31. before allnded
to. But when a fufficient fum was accumulated
to anfwcr thefe demands, it became a very im-
portant conftderation that the whole monies of
the Theatre thould become a dead fund, pro-
dulive to no one except Meilis. Ford and Ham-
medley, and whether accumulations fhould ceafe
when enough was obtained to cover the demands,
or continue for the benefit of perfons inter.ffed ?
Mr. PIGOT proceeded. If the Order was con•
firmed it would, he laid, be the moll ferious injury
to the Rent Chargers. It was well known that in
the early !part of the feafon, the Theatre was not
produifive on account of many families being ab-
fent from town. If Medis. Ford and Hammer-
Bey could not then make up the fums they were
entitled to receive, they muff have the monies till
the deficiency was covered ; but was it to he raid,
they were to lock up all the monies of the Theatre
in their fhop till the end of the feafois ? The Per-
formers and perfcns employed in the Theatre
could not wait till that time ; and if the Perform-
erswerc not paid the Theatre muff be (hut : it was
impoffible to carry on trade without materials.—
The intereft of all parties concerned in the Theatre
muff be by fit. ii a rreafurc defeated or injured, and
it was furely impnffible furls a Motion could be
gt anted.—Mr. Sr 4 V LEY followed on the fame fide.
.„.

Mr. AGAR offered himfelf on behalf of Mr.
Grubb. The LORD CHANCELLOR fait!, he did not
lee how Mr. Grubb was individually affeatd.
Mr. AGAR. ftid, by the truft-deed of
_lone [793,
he appeared as the Proprietor of one-feventh of
the property [tithe Theatre, and it was Rued by
that deed, that Mr. Grubb was appointed Trea-
fitter of the Theatre. He was proceeding to read
lonic parts of the sized when—
LORD CtIANCF.LLOR laid, he had read
through-the truft-deed of June 1793, and he was
perfeetly clear, that under that deed the Perform.
els mull b.: paid, and that the Punkets ci,ciel not
hold the monies of the Theatre againft the de-
mands of the Performers. It was dillinaly
in that deed, that the profits were to be applied
to fuch and fuck purpofes ; and what could he
deemed the profits but that furplos, after pnyinr;
the Pet fbrmerF., and the other outgoings of the
Theatre? He apprehended thisfarphis only could
he deemed the proliti, and it wus but common
juftice to pay the wages of the Actors. it might
become a epieflion whether the Rent Charges
did not clothe thole Si ho held them w it}, the
charaaer of Tritilees, but whoever afted under
the truft•decd mutt ati accua ditirt• to its provition,..

Mr. SHER I n...s rofe and addreffed the Court.—
alway, underflood, he faid, that under tilt
Trull Deed of June 1793, the Performers were to
be paid in the firft balance ; and he would not lign
or conliaa to the Order, until words were exprefsly
inferted that it fhould be without prejudice to that
Deed. He faid, that he had no hand in the dif-1
pofition of the money ot iginally raifed for building
the Theatre. The Truftees had agreed for the
building of the Theatre for mood. and Mr. Hol-
land (load pledged to finith it,with the taverns and
forrounding buildings, complete, for that fum
That fum, however, was (pent, and the Theatre
was not completed in any of its parts, but required
the ihm of to,oool. more to fit it for Reprdenta-
tion. He complained much of the expences in-
, cut rrd by law even in that early flage of the bull-
rid ; and, s as an balance, he raid, the deeds of the
Renters,whiar was a simple engraving upon parch-
ment, wassliarvd in the bill of law expences.at the
(urn of ',tool. The Deed which had called himfclf,
IMr. Richardtiur, and Mr. Grubb, tole proprietors
of the Tlic:tret•had declared an ntter falfehood,
Melfrs. Gruits and Riehardfon only deriving cer-
tain rights from himiell. He was told, however,
they should be fo !hied ; but the Solicitor for the
Bankers, after he (Mr. Sheridan) had figned the
Deed, drew up a Memorandum, which was exe-
cuted, exprefsly declaring, that nothing in the i
Deed Ibould be contirued to invalidate the excht.l
live property of hinifell (Mr. Sheridan) in that
Theatre. Since that, Mr. Richardfon had become
an aattal Proprietor, having purchased one quar-
ter
of the Theatre. The Theatre could not (land,
he faid, again 9 the expences canted by Gentlemen
coming into Court info many different charaaers.
In his letter to Mr. Trou ard, he had, he faid, con-
tented to Meffrs. Ford and Hammerfley taking the
whole of the Pit Money until the arrears due to
them were paid, and then that they Illon:d take 431.
per night for the payment of the Rent-r: Shares.
He was not bound to pay them mare than 431. ;1
!hut rather than there fhould be the rerno: A pro
fpea of the R•futers fuffering by conlit;g:nci.:s,
he had agreed to make it 45F. But it not
for a moment be conceived, that lie o :.n.
fent to a propofill which went to lock t•a the
receipts of the Pit, and prevent th m trom
applied to the purpofec of the Theatre until the
end of the &aeon. He was not obliged to open
the Theatre. It was clearly t!:e intcreft rf the
Renters that the Performances th mid go on—but
how cuu!d they on s% ;thou rnmer t • •hlr.
Troward propofed the Order to !am, ard reeorn-
mended him to corf:nt to it. He had conient.:,l
to it. The Order lo far 11,.•d againll him, and
if perfifted in moil 111:13111.4 up of the
Theatre. But how had he contented to it ? He
had c onfented to an Order founded upon thofe et:-
00%114am ssh eh he had before ilatsci. He did

' r., !t underhand C,.:l'lly the grnmmati<•.i! conllt h.:-
Con of the Older ; all he nnderftood was, ;hat
MArs. Ford and Haruncrfley were entit!. d :o
no more than 431. out of the Pit Money. He was
afterwards told that the Order was wortkJ io a
way %title?' did not exactly full his meaning ; (hit,
, h0....-ever, he was given to underfiarid, that the
wording of it was of little confernet:cc, ac its
leope and tendency were perfeCtly 'ided-mod. It
was found, at length, that the Order was to be
lb iCtly afted upon according to its letter, and that
directions were given by the Bankers for enforc-
ing it. Mr. Richardfon in his ahfcnce had given
contrary direaions ; and he could not fly that
Mr. Richardfon was to blame, becaufe the Thea-
tre could otherwife not have gone on. Meirrs.
Ford and Hammerfley had now, however, 1.-rved
a fecond notice, and appeared determined to feite
the whole of the Pit Money under the authority
of the letter of the Order, but certainly contrary
to its fpirit. He apologifed for troubling the
Court, but he wifhed for relief from the effeet of
an Order into which he had been entrapped, and
that the 'fruit Deed of 1793 might be executed in
all its provifions without any reftrietion.
Mr. AGAR was then heard in behalf of Mr.
Grubb.

The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid, it was of little
confequence whether Metlrs. Itichardfon and
Grubb held derivative or aCtual rights in the pro-
perty of the Theatre, provided they were fo far
intereffed as to be parties to this Order.
Mr. MANSTIELD offered himfelf in reply.
The Loan CHANCELLOR laid, he was lorry he
could not hear Mr. Mansfield in reply, but he was
compelled to be elks% here at twoo'clock. He hoped
the concerns of the Theatre would not Puffer by
a few hours delay. The Order having been made
by content, certainly ought to have been entirely
approved and rendered perfeCtly confilient with
the intaells of all parties. It had (truck him very
(lrongly that the Performers had not only a moral
but a covenanted right to be paid, nor could there
be any profits until the Performers were paid. He
law many Gentlemen before him, who he was
convinced would fettle this bufinela as well as it
could poffibly be done by the Court, becaufe they
would 261 upon the principles of jidlice, which was
all that would be requifite. He was afraid, it
was impoffible the intcrefts of the Theatre could
be fettled in that Court before they were ruined.
He had found from long experience, that that.
Court could not, in cafes like the prefent, do that
ample j it Rice to all parties which was neceliary and
requifite.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL laid, Mr. Sheridan was
fo convinced of the truth of his Lordfhip': übfer-
vation, that he was ready to leave the whole to Lo
reviled by any Gentleman of the Profeffion whom
his Lordthip fliould name.—The Caine flood ose:.

COURT OF CON:MON PLEAS, NOV. 9.

Serjeant Bev'. (hewed cattle amainff a R'.:lc 01)1
tamed by Serjc-:nt BAILEY, to fee; afide an :=lCh-
, meat aeainll etc ;,heritf of Stafford, in a cattle—
licmfon againe: Knox.
Thii was, as appeared in argument, rather a
cal.: in or. lice, arifing in the conaruilion of a
It:lc oftc:ritut of Hilary Tertn, 1782, relating to
a Cafint bciag ham out in one county, and a Ili:
lawn (:a.: hcing cettiEA to another, whereby tt
occa lion, great uncertainties as to n hat aunty t:ie
bail fhonid be tendered in. In thepreil:nt intlance a
Capin: was fued out in Middlefex,ar.d a Tefiatum Co-
pies was tent into the county of Stanrd. Notice of
hail was given in that county, fur want of its being
done in Islicidlcfcx, from whence the original pro.
cefc iffued, the Sheriff of Stafford was ruled to
bring in the body, and failing to do that, the at-
tachment illbed. The Court thought it ton much
to get rid of the debt of 551. 4s. by this kerning
irregularity, therefore made an order, that the
parties fltould he at liberty to go on to trial, the
attachment againfi the Shea iff remaining as a fecu-
rity to abide the event.