Star.
London, England, 1819-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLTOSNCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY !S.
DRURY-LANE THEATRE.
COOK O. 10CLKES AND AHOTHER, AND THE DRURY-
LANE THEATRE COMPANY. •
On- a former day the SOLICITOR GENERAL had ap-
plied to the Court for an Injunction to restrain the
defendant, Foulkes, from issuing under execution a
judgment of:700, for goods delivered for the use of
the Theatre. Counsel were then fully heard on the
part of the plaintiff.
Mr. %YINOFIELD now appeared on thr part of the
defendant, Foulkes, and contended, that he had a

priority in the payments of his debts, because he had
furnished the Theatre with those necessaries without
which no performances could have taken place.
The LORD CHA NCLLLOR asked whether the defen-
dant had supplied his candles to the Theatre upon a
written contract ?
Mr. WINGFIELD believed that no written contract
had been entered into. The Drury-lane Company,
had admitted that it had contracted this debt for
what had been supplied to the Theatre.
The Solicitor on the part of the defendant in the'
cause, said, that the goods had been furnished in con-
sequence of written notes from Mr. Banks, the Sub-
Treasurer, and the Sub-Committee.
Mr. WINGPILLD.--ThiS Committee was authorised
to contract these debts for the Theatre.
The LORD Cmtpmes.r.oa.—lf any of the tradesmen
'who furnished Theatres with }cocas are standing by,
1 la c.andidlr tell them. that they ara r
they mate such contracts any mere, and supply
goods without a better securitl. With respect to the
present defendant, he has had a judgment in his favour.
Mr. WINGFIRLD continued.—The construction
which the plaintiff put upon the Act of Parliament,
under which the Theatre was last built, was a most
curious one, and according to it, the instant the
goods were placed in the hands of the Theatre, they
could not be touched, and those who supplied them
vents 10 go unpaid, and he contented. He was per-
suaded that his Lordship would look very closely to
the, Act before he would draw such a conclusion. It
never would, he was convinced, be decided by his
Lordship, that those individuals, who had in fact en-
abled the Theatre to commence its pubic represen-
tations, should be classed with the simple contract
debtors. It was quite preposterous to say that the
rent, taxes, &c. should be paid before the defendant,
who had actually furnished the candles for the
Theatre, without which nothing could have been
done. If this were allowed, then the tradesmen who
had supplied the necessaries could be considered only
in the light of speculators. •
The LORD CUANGELLOR.,-.lf tradesmen will
wil-
fully run into difficulties of this kind, it is their own.
fault. If one creditor was allowed to go to the
Theatre and to take one thing, and another another,
it would become a complete comedy ofErrots.
Mr. Wtuorizt,D.—lt is a Comedy for the Theatre,
and a Tragedy for the poor tradesmen.
The LORD CuaNcELLoa.—lt is entirely their own
fault if they act as Tragedians. If he was rascal
enough to order a quantity of goods, knowing that
be should not be able to pay for them, and the trades-
men were fools enough to furnish them, they must
suffer for their folly. Nothing was to bealone. It
would be a rascally act, but still there was no re.
medy. When tradesmen dealt with a Corporation,"
Goa must help them, for he could not. " It is ex-
tremely difficult for me to take care of men when
they will not take care of themselves by using a pro-
per caution. Last year a case came before me where
a Theatre could not pay the salaries of the perfor-
mers. If a woman chooses to sing where there is no
chance of being paid for it, she is a fool for so doing."
• Mr. WINGTIRLD argued, that unless it could be
shewn that in common justice the plaintiff ought to
be paid before Mr. Foulkes, and unless it appeared
that there had existed some unfair dealings between
the parties, there was not a pretence for postponing
the defendant's claim.
Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT observed, that Mr. Foulkes
had been paid ready money for the good which which he
had lately furnished to the Theatre ; 00 was
an old debt.

Mr. WINGFIELD submitted, that unless a case of
collusion between the defendant and the Theatre
could be made out, the plaintiff was not entitled to
file such a bill as had been put in. With respect to
the sum itself, it was very small ; and he could not
understand how this great National Establishment
could possibly be ruined by the payment 0f1.700.
Mr. Ilmtssit followed on the same side. It ap-
peared that his Lordship was applied to by nearly all
the Theatres in London to settle their disputes. The
affairs of the Opera House and of Drury-lane Thea-
tre had already been under discussion; and he be-
lieved that another great Theatre would before long
also apply to his Lordship for advice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what Theatre that
was? Mr. BARBER replied, that he was not now at
liberty to disclose it.
The Loup CHANCELLOR.—Let me at least have
bat out at a time.
Mr. BARBER said, that the case of the defendants
had been compared to a comedy of errors: he rather
thought it would appear to be more similar to a hor-
net's nest. He went over the various arguments
which Mr. Wingfield had before touched upon, and
concluded with observing, that he did not see the]
least equitable cluim which the plaintiff could have
in this case.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL shortly replied. The I
defendants, he said, had entered into an engagement'
with the Drury-lane Company with the Act of Par-
liament staring them in their face; and if they bad
not used due diligence, they had only to thank their
own negligence for it.
Sir ARTHUR Ploocrrx explained, on the part of the
Theatre, that the Company was willing and prepared
to pay to the creditors ten shillings in the pound.
The amount of the whole debt was £34,000, and the
Company was ready to pay £17,000. The defen-
dant would also be allowed the whole of his cogs,
because those expenses were incurred before any of-
fer was made of this nature. He wished the defen-
dant to give due consideration to this offer. lie was
still, and would continue to be, considered as a trades-
man belonging to the Theatre. •
The LORD CHANCELLOIL,-..Wi1l the Proprietors
undertake that no goods shall be movedoway ?
Sir ARTHUR ricatiorr.—Unduubtedly they will.