Star.
London, England, 1826-02-09 00:00:00

COVENT-GARDEN.

Guy Mannering was revived on Tuesday, for the pur-
pose ot introducing Mr. BaAHAM to the Public, for the
first time these seven years at this Theatre, in his old
and popular character, Henry Bertram. The house was
crowded to excess. Mr. BLSAHAX, who was in most
excellent voice, and imparted the fullest effect to his
character, was received with enthusiasm by the audience.
Miss PATON appeared for the first time as Lucy Ber-
tram, and acquitted herself throughout in her usual
delightful style, especially in a new song; entitled
Bonny brave Scotland," which was rapturously en-
cored. The repetition of most of the songs in the Opera
was insisted on, but a new ballad, ga Woman," sweetly
sung by Mr. BRAHAM, was particularly marked with
applause. Mr. Smug filled the character of Colonel
Atannering, for the first time, very respectably.

LAW REPORT;

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FISILVAILY ii.

FENTON'S HOTEL.-COOPII D. FENTON AND PETO.
Mr. TINNEY said he was instructed to ni )ve ex parte
for a special injunction against the defendants in this
case, which he could state in a very few words. Messrs.
Coopers were upholsterers, Mr. Fenton was the pro-
prietor of the Hotel in question at the West End of the
town, and Mr. Peto was a builder. The plaintiffs,
upon an agreement that they were to have a row tgage
of the premises, agreed to fit them up, which they had
already done to the extent of 1,2001. expense; upon ap-
plying, a day or two ago, to Mr. Fenton's solicitor for
the execution of the mortgage deed,they were informed',
that a similar deed was just about being executed to
Mr. Peto, he being the first incumbrance, and that the
plaintiffs would be allowed to come in as second in-
cumbrances. In the affidavits of the plaintiffs, they
stated that when the agreement with them was entered
into, twelve months since, they were infointed and
believed that the premi,es were actually unincurrobered,
• and thit a-mortgage would be executed to them as the
first incumb:ancer.; that they believed the building of
the Hotel could not cost less than 20,0001. and that if

the premises were to be first mortgaged over to Mr.
Pew, the builder, a mortgage to the plaintiffs would be
v ortli just as much as a piece of waste paper: that as
!gr. Fenton was now about handing over his title deeds
to NIT.. Peto, and eze,:uting the mortgage to him, the
present :njut•.ctio'r. was prayed, to restrain Jr. Fenton
flout handing over, and Mr. Pew from receiving any
such writings.
His HONOUR did not know that any mischief could
be:claim alter notice of the bil) having been filed ; and
thet efo: e, he uoyoe.tionably would refuse w grant the
iiijunct on.
Mr. 'rotary desired to know whether the Court would permit
t►e plaintiffs to give notics of a motion for the injunction?
fits tiolcoutt Laid, certainly not. The plaintiffs had
Nothing to ch. but to give notice that the bill was filed.
,The Court trusted that this egrigiously oppressive and

injurious practice., after such glaring abuse of the prin
ciple of granting ex parte injunctions, which had been
shown Lately, would very sods be effectually put it stogy:
to. Nothing so imperiously cilia for effectual inter-
ference front another qUarter.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 15111ROA ST 8.
THE KING V. THE BRISTOL DOCK CoDPANY.

The Arroawav-GENERAL moved for a writ, of man-
damus, commanding the Directors of the Bristol Dock
Company to make a sewer itt the city of tilistol, in
order to remove a certain nuisance st'hith existed there,
highly detrimental to the health of the inhabitants, and
which was occasioned entirely by the Company's docks.
The question was, whether the Company, under their
Act of Parliament, were bound to make this sewer,
which was absolutely necessary to remove the nuisance
or, whether it ought to be m Ale at the expense of the
City of Bristol ?
The Court granted a role to shew cause why a mandamus
should not issue.