Star.
London, England, 1829-07-06 00:00:00

LEMBLZ AND OTHERS V. HARRIS AND CONST.

Mr. PEPYS presented a petition on behalf of Messrs.
Kemble, Willett, and Forbes, the present Managers and
Directors of Covent-garden Theatre, praying that a sum
of about 7,0001. be paid out of a fund of 20,0006. now
in the hands of the Court. This sum of 7,0001. now
required, was made up of three different sums—first,
the amount due to the Duke of Bedford, the ground
landord, for a year and three-quarters rent ; next, a sum
of 2,2001. which had been advanced by the petitioners
cut of their own pockets for necessary expenses; and,
thirdly, 1,1001. which the Master had allowed to the
Receiver, Mr. Robertson, he having an increase of salary
of two hundred and fifty pounds for the last five years,
with a iew deductions. The Learned Gentleman entered
into rather a minute detail of the various pecuniary
affairs of the Theatre, more especially during the ma.
nagement of Messrs. Kemble, Willett and Forbes, and
showed that some very large advances had been made
by those Gentlemen, for the greater portioc of which
they were completely out of pocket. Besides a sum of
22,0001. of old debts paid out of the produce of the
Theatre, from May, 1822, to June, 1824., a sum of
20,0001. had been paid into Court out of their own
pockets; and it was out of this sum the petitioners were
desirous their expenses should be defrayed. It was ob-
vious that the affairs of the Theatre could not go on
urless the rent was paid to the Duke of Bedford, by
whom an action of ejectment had been brought; and it
was equally clear that the performers, authors, and
others, must be paid for their services rendered to the
Theatre. The last sum of 1,1001. the Master had reported
Mr. Robertson entitled to receive.
Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. Lorrus LOWNDES also
supported the Petition.
Mr. HORNE and Mr. BICEERSTZTH, on behalf of
Mr. Const, regretted that this petition had been pre-
sented, because there was no ground for the applica-
tion, and the only effect of it was to increase the expense
of the legal proceedings. With respect to the debt due
to the Duke of Bedford, it was admitted that it ought
tc be paid, nct, however, to the present petitioners (for
who could tell that it would ever reach his Grace), but
to the agent of the Duke himself. Why, the Learned
Counsel asked, had not this rent been long since paid ?
Why should the simple contract and other creditors
have been paid before the ground landlord? This was
surely a proof of great mismanagement. It was said
that the Theatre produced no profit. It might be so;
but what proof had been afforded to Mr. Coast of
the fact? and if the fact were true, what proof
had Mr. Const that such absence of profit was not
owing to the mismanagement of the petitioners ?
Mr. Const was only anxious as far as he could to
protect the interests of the Theatre, and, in so doing,
to protect his own. He was desirous that his small
share in the concern should not become entirely
wolthless through the mismanagement of these peti-
tioners. In conceding the payment of the rent to the
Duke of Bedford out of the fund in Court, Mr. Const
was conceding much, and it was hoped that the Court
would at once refuse the prayer of the petition as to
the other charges. There was no pretence for their al.
lowance until the matter had been inquired into by the
Master. By the judgment this morning given by his
Lordship, that inquiry had been instituted, and the
whole subject would be placed under proper investiga-
tp,n. When the Master had made his report, there
would be time enough to make these allowances.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the petitioners
d,J not ask for inquiry ?
Mr. LOWNDES replied in the affirmative as to the two
latter sums mentioned in the petition.
Mr. HORNE observed, that no further inquiry could
possibly be ►equired than that which had already been
du erred.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. JAMES appeared
as Counsel for Mr. Hartis, and went over nearly the
same grounds d 5 were touched upon by the Counsel for
Mr. Const. If the ground landlord was to be paid (and
that part of the petition was not objected to), it was
highly desirable that it should be paid to the Duke's
own agent, without passing through the hands of the
petitioners.

Nlr. JAMES contended that there was no pretence for
incteasing the salary of Mr. Robertson.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether he filled any
other character than receiver?

Mr. LOWNDES replied that he filled other offices.
Mr. JAMES supposed he was treasurer, box keeper,
&c. but the treasurer of an empty excl►rquer could nct
bi called upon for any great exertions. Mr. Robertson's
salary was in the first inbtarce 2501. a year; that was
afterwards increased to 4001. and now he had the
modesty to ask for an increase of 2501. for the last five
years. The Master, it was true, had thought proper to
allow it, but that was no reason for its being pa►d out
01 the funds in Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what objection there
was to the 2,2001. required by the petition ?
Mr. JAMES said, there was no proof that the money
had been pAid.
Mr. PRPT3 produced an affidavit, in which the fact

was distinctly sworn. The different items were par-
ticularized with great exactness.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what evidence Mr.
James relied on?
Mr. JAMES submitted that no fresh affidavits had been
filed to meet this motion. This was not the first time
this application had been made. The question had al-
ready been discussed, in one shape or other, five or
six times.
Mr. PEPTS replied at some length. With respect to
the inquiry directed by the Master of the Rolls, and
affirmed by his Lordship, it wholly related to the deed
of 1812, and did not touch this question. It was there-
fore highly expedient that the inquiry now asked for
should be made., He had no objection that the rent
should be paid immediately to the agent of the Dike.
The petitioners were only desirous that the money
should be paid, and that without delay. It was a fact
which could not be for a moment disputed, that the

profits cf this Theatre were literally nothing.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether this might
not be fairly imputed to the mismanagement of the pe-
titioners?

liiiiiiIMIIMINNIIMINI