Star.
London, England, 1810-12-14 00:00:00

Mr. SfIADWELL applied to his Honour on the part
of the Proprietors of Covent-Garden Theatre, to sus-
pend an injunction which had been yesterday obtain-
ed from the Chancellor by Mr. Morris, of the Hay.
market Theatre, for preventing the acting of the New
Farce X. Y. Z. The facts upon which Sir Samuel
Romilly obtained the injunction were, that in the
year 1805, Mr. Morris had entered into partnership
with Mr. Colman, in the concern of the Haymarket
Theatre ; and that there was an engagement between
them, that Mr. Colman should write only for the
" Haymarket Theatre." After this piece had been
given in, notice was sent by Mr. Morris to the Pro-
prietors of Covent Garden Theatre, that he intended
to apply for an injunction to stop the representation
of it. They proceeded notwithstanding, and there-
fore it was necessary to make the application. The
Chancellor considering the injury that might result
to the Covent Garden Proprietors, from disappoint-
ing the expectations of the public, allowed the Farce
to be acted last night ; but granted the injunction to
stop any further representation till he had heard the
parties.
Mr. SIIADWELL stated, that the Covent Garden
Proprietors had announced the piece for representa-
tion this evening, in the hope that the Lord Chancel-1
tor, upon a statement of the circumstances, would
dissolve the injunction ; and they had done this, be-
cause, unless the representation was continued night
after night, the benefit of the farce would be almost
entirely lost to the Proprietors, notwithstanding the
rum they had paid for it to Mr. Colman ; and the
4 xpence they had been put to in bringing it forward.
lie stated that he had an affidavit of Mr. Harris,
that they had received no notice of the engagement
between Mr. Morris and Mr. Col Man, till they had
asVianced £2OO upon account to the latter, and made
preparations for acting the Farce ; and he therefore
submitted that the Proprietors of Covent Garden
Theatre stood in the situation of purchasers for valua-
ble consideration without notice ' • and that the en-
gagement between Morris and Colman ought not, in
this instance, to affect them. The application had
been made this day at the Lord Chancellor's house,
but his Lordship was out of town, and not expe-t-
-ed to return till late in the evening. They were
therefore under the necessity of applying to his ,
Honour to interfere so far as to permit the acting of
the piece this night till they could apply to hi.
Lordship.
- _

The MASTZIt of the ROLLS asked, whether he had
any power to suspend the Lord Chancellor's in-
junction ?
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, nn the part of Mr. Morris,
agreed with the Master of the Rolls, that his honour
had no authority in this case. The Proprietors of
Covent Garden Theatre, he apprehended, had acted
very rashly in announcing the piece for repetition,
after notice last night of the Chancellor's injunction.
He had not heard any proposal from Mr. Shadwell
to account for his share of the profits to Mr. Morris,
in case he ultimately succeeded, provided Mr. Morris
should be disposed to consent upon these terms, that
the Farce should be performed to-night.
Mr. SHAnwr.r.t. said, that they had no objection to
these terms.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY then consented to wave the
injunction for one night, upon the condition stated,
observing, however, that it would be no easy matter
to settle what should be Mr. Morris's share; as it
would be necessary to decide how many came to
see Gustavus Vasa, and how many to see X. Y. Z.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13.
X. Y. X.—MORRIS V. HARRIS AND OTHERS.
In this case
.an injunction had been obtained by
Mr. Morris, one of the Proprietors of the Haymarket
Theatre, for restraining the defendants, Proprietors
of the Theatre, Covent Garden, in performing a new
Farce, under the title of 41 X. Y. Z." written by
George Colman, Esq.
An application was made this day, by Mr. HART,
to the Court, praying that the said injunction might
be suspended for the present, on the ground that the
Proprietors, having given a valuable consideration to
Mr. Colman for the copy-right, and the public cu-
sosity being awakened to see the piece, the damages
which the applicants would sustain would be consi-
derable, if the injunction was continued. It was fur-
thermore insisted, that Mr. Morris, who i 3 concerned

in the Haymarket Theatre with his brother-in-law,
Mr. Colman, could not have any right to demand a
"lien" on the genius of that Gentleman. His abili.
ties as a play-weight were in fact all that remained to
enable him to provide for his maintenance, in the pre-
sent shipwrecked state of his fortunes, and although
it wat tine that an agreement was made between the
parties that he should not write any play for any other
.Theatre, yet it would not be contended that Mr. Mor-
tis could compel the exertion of his abilities.
After Sir S. RorarrJA had been heard for the Co-
vent Garden Managers,
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without giving any opi-
nion on the merits of the case, directed that an order
should be made for suspending the injunction for the
presont, with this understanding, that on the merits
of the case being fully before the Court, if it should
appear the Haymarket Theatre were legally interest-
ed in its suppression, then the Proprietors or Covent
Garden Theatre should be accountable for the p:ofits
during its being performed.

LAW INTALLIb EN CE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER it
x. Y. Z.