Star.
London, England, 1827-04-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Ann. 12.
GLASSINGTON V. TRWAITSA.
On the sitting of the Court, this morning, Mr. Glas-
sington, the petitioner in the above cause, begged to re-
mind-his Lordship of his promise to deliver out the mi-
nutes of his order to the Registrar.
The LORD CGANCELLORI have rut forgotten that
cause of Qlassington v. Thwaites, but if persons will
blunder for three years together. in the way in which
they have done in this case, the matter is not easily set
right. l have, however, drawn out the minutes, which
I will deliver-to the Registrar.
Mr. Glassingtnn said, it he had not been in the peat's%
distress, he would not have troubled his Lordship. the
fact was, that he had been arrested in his Lordship's pre-
serfce, whilst his cause was being argued. at the instance
of his former Solicitor, who was now the avowed agent
of the defendant.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR—If any one has dared to
arrest you whilst you were attending your cause, I am
sure, it a proper complaint ,had been made, the party
would not have ventured to do any thing of that sort
again. With respect to the case in which you are en-
gaged, I do not believe there is any Gentleman at the
Bar who ever saw a case which has been so conducted.
If you or any one else supposes, that where blunder
follows blunder, till a regular system of error is estab-
lished upon the record, each as 1 never remembered in
my life, and imagine this can be easily set right, you do
not understand the difficulties of the case. I can.-bOw-
ever, assure you, that no one is more desirous than /am
to get you rid of all your difficulties.
SITTINGS.
His Lemont'r stated. for the convenienceof parties,
that the First Seal would be on Tuesday the gith inst.
but that, he would sit here on Thursday sliest and the fol-
lowing Saturday, for the express purpose of giving
judgments, letting the Solicitors on both sides know the
cases in which he would give judgment.
GRANT V. ORANT•-•.Ni =RAT IMMO.
This matter was again spoken to. By one calculation
that had been handed to the Court, it appeared that
doily 5001. and a fraction was due to Sir Alexander
Grant, by another 16,0001. and by another 6,0001. His
Lordship felt unable to reconcile these calculations, but
it did appear to him that the last sum ought to be the
sum to which the writ ought to be reduced.
Mr. 14. tar's client then consented to givrbail for
the 6,0001.

TAILORS. RIGHTS TO HAVE Et...PARTE HISONCTIONS.
Mr. SBA/WELL moved a few days ago*befnre the
Vice-Chancellor, exiarfe, for an injunction, on behalf
of one tailor against another. His Honour considered,
that if he granted the injunction, it would be abasing
the principle nn which the exTerie injunctions had been
granted. We believe the parties lived at Bath, and that
the plaintiff is the father of the defendant.
Mr. SRA/WELL applied yesterday, at the rising of the
Court, to his Lordship, in the shape of an appeal.
His Losisant, said to-day.he wished to know what

be was to do shout the tailors?
Mr. SHADS/ILL considered the only question to be,
whether the Court Would grant the injunction or not ?
His LORDSHIP thought he could not refuse it merely
because the parties were tailors. The next point was,
whether the sum of 2501. stated to be in dispute be-
tween two tailors, was a sum too small for the jurisdic.
Con of this Court? and upon this point his Lordship
did not feel authorised to say that one tailor was not
entitled to have the interference of the Court against
another tailor, in consideration of that sum—(laughter)
—and therefore the injunction would have to go.
• •WELLESLIti W. THR DUES OP REM/PORT.
Mr. SHADwut stated, that as the costs already in-
curred in this matter were very considerable, amounting
to above 3,0011. and as they would necessarily be in-
creased by the appeal which Mr. Wellesley had thought
proper to set down before the House of Lords, his clients,
Messrs. Hutchinson and Holdsworth, the Solicitors for
the infants, bad been advised to present a petition, pray.
ing that the Receiver might .he directed to advance
them a suns of 2,0001. in part payment of their bill, and
for the purpose of enabling them to prosecute the suit.
14e. Tnalmove, on the same side, thought that it was
a most extraordinary thing that Mr. Wellesley should
have evinced any desire to be served with a copy
of this petition, as, considering what had been done in
this cause. that Gentleman had no concern whatever
with the distribution of his children's property.
Mr. HART. on the part of Mr. Wellesley, said, it was
the kit time he had ever heard it asserted that a parent,
also.. by the law of the land, was the natural and legal
guardian of his children, had no interest in preventing
their property from being wasted and dissipated. He
trusted his Lordship would not allow the property of
the infants to be employed in the payment of these
casts, merely because it was alleged that great expenses
bad been incurred in the carrying on this suit. The
parties had not thought proper to deliver any bill of
costs, nor could he, by any means, conjecture how the
sons of 3,0001. had been incurred by two or three hear-
ings and a few hundred folios of affidavits.
Mr. SUADWeLL, in reply, said, admitting Mr. Wel-
lesley was the natural parent of the children, still, ay..
cording to the judgment of the Lnrd Chancellor, he
had not placed himself in such a situation as would
enable him to act in that character.
The Lotto CHANCIILLOR said, though he could not
lay down any rule why Mr. Wellesley should or should
not have been served with a copy of the petition, yet,
notwithstanding the decision of the Court as to his rights
as a parent, still it ought to take care that such a deci-
sien should not have too harsh en effect. The reason
Ire wished Mr. Welledey should be served with the
petition was, because he apprehended it would be said
that the receiver had no money in his hands wherewith
to pay the costs; as, on looking over there very volumi
nous affidavits, he remembered that Mr. Wellesley had
himself received some portion of the rents,in consequence
of certain mortgages on the property. The real question
upon this motion was, whether it would be for tl.e benefit
of these infants that the sum should be advanced for the
purpose of enabling their Solicitors to carry on this mat-
ter before the House of Lords. in order that the errors of
that Court might beset right, or whether it should be re•
leered to the Master ? Upon the whole, as he conceived no
ewe wield doubt that this had been a very expensive
proceeding, be could see no objection to Mr. Shad well's
client having 1,5001. subject to an account.
• Mr. Harr thought Messrs. Hutchinson and Co.
ought to deliver a bill of costs.
ne LORD CHANCJILLOR had no• objection to those
Ger.t!emen taking their bill in before ths. Master, and

haring the twhdle of the eons which he should allow els°
to the present time.
Mr. Haat—Does not your Lordship think that Mr.
Wellesley should attend the taxation of the Bill ?
The LORD CRANCRLI,OR-1 do not • know what. to,
say to that. Will Mr. Wellesley be at the expense of
it? for you s-e there is no other fund out of which these
costs can be had except the eldest boy's estate.
No further conversation took place upon the subject.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Ann. H.
COY INT• eA RDIN
BMWs v. KIIIIIILI AND itilliSlF•isuomiarr.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, on taking hisseat this morn-
ing, gave judgment in this case. His Honour minutely
went over the evidence, the details of which have already
been made public. He observed that in March. 1822,
the plaintiff, Henry Harris, became proprietor of
14 24th shares of the property of Covent-garden Theatre,
with Messrs. Kemble, Willett, and Forbes. and Mr.
Const, who was also one of the defendants. This agree-
ment provided that the plaintiff, Henry Harris, was
to assign a lease of Covent-garden Theatre to a
Mr. Harrison, and that Messrs. Kemble, Willett, and
Forbes were to take a lease of the Theatre from this
Gentleman for ten years, at a rent of 12,0001. per'
annum ; the plaintiff was to receive 7.0001. a-year
under this agreement. All the profits of the Theatre were,
according to the conditions of this agreement, to be paid
to discharge the incumbrances that affected the property.
The plaintiff having no other property excepting the
Theatre, stipulated that he should receive certain rents
paid to the proprietors. These consisted of the profits,
ofthe saloon and fruit-room, the profits derivable from
iniocerta, and the rent of a private box, rented bySie E.,
Antrobus for 2101. per annum, making in all a yearly,
Amome of 14601. The defendants.; it appeared, were'
' dissatisfied with this arraagement, and entered into an
agreement with him to purchase his interest in the
establishment. An arrangement was accordingly pre-
fteski by the defendants, that the yearly expellees of
Ate Theatre should be proportioned to its profits.—
he plaiotiff objected to this proposal, but offered
to take the Theatre at a rent of 13,5001. per annum.,
, The defendants, however, refused this offer, and
bad recourse to a proceeding which his Honour was
sow called upon to decide, namely—the original agree-
ment. The plaintiff, Mr. Harris, soon after thisagree-
went, resigned, and the affairs of the Theatre fell into
the hands of the defendants, who, conceiving that Mr.
Const was a party to the arrangement, introduced his
name into the deed of agreement. Mr. Coast, how:
'ever, filed a bill in Chancery, with a view to carry into
effect a deed executed on the 15th of March, 1812,
which proved, amongst other things, that the profits of
the establishment should be applied to the payment of
the debts by which it was affected, until the whole
of thoie debts were satisfied. The Lord Chancellor
made an order to that effect, and desired that a re-
ceiver should be appointed to carry into effect the pro-
visions of the original deed. A few days after this
order had been made, the defendants caused a letter to
be written, directed to Mr. Harris, repudiating the
agreement entered Into between the parties. On the
11th of March,. 1824, the plaintiff filed his bill, in order
to secure the due performance of the lease which the
defendants had assigned him. Mr. Const was made a
party to the bill, not on the grounds of his being an
executing party to the deed, but that be had subse-
quently identified himself with it. No case, however,
had been made out against Mr. Const, and therefore
with respect to him, and as far as he was concerned
in the Bill, the Court were of opinion that it should be
dismissed with costs. The rest of the defendants, exclu-
sive of Const, then said, that they were no longer bound
by the deed of 1822. They. insisted further that they
had no notice of the deed of 1812. He (the Vice-
Chancellor) was of opinion that the plaintiff in this re-
spect had not departed from the agreement. The
plaintiff was charged next with misleading the defend-
"ants with regard to the profits of the Theatre; the ac-
eounts of the Theatre were for many years ept by a
person named Brandon. The defendants admitted that
those accounts were open to their inspection, and one
of them actually suggested an alteration in the mode
of keeping them, which was afterwards adopted. Yet
it was charged against Mr. Brandon that he was in-
competent to keep his accounts. The plaintiff had
written to the defendants, stating that the average re-
ceipts for 12 seasons were to the amount of 82,0501. one-
third however of the gross receiptsof the Theatre was to
be deducted for the expenses incurred on benefit nights.
His Honour here entered into a variety of details, read-
ing over and commenting on the evidence with great
clearness and precision, with a view to shew that the
plaintiff had not wilfully misrepresented the profits of
'the Theatre. The next charge against the plaintiff
was, that he concealed from the defendants the letting
of a box in the Theatre. This box had originally been
let to the Duke of Gloucester, at a yearly rent of 2101.
The plaintiff sold this box to Sir Edw.Antrobus for
each alternate week, for the term of twenty-one
yam's.' Mr. Harris, however, being a proprietor of
one-half of the.Theatre, could easily be held responsi-
ble for this act, and therefore the charge of conceal.
ment could not be maintained. Under all the cir-
cumstances of the case, his Honour was of opinion that
the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. He should, there-
fore, make an order to that effect, and refer the matter
to the Master to settle the form of deed, stipoisping
that Mr. Const should not be a party to it. He should
also direct that a new trustee be appointed in the room
of Mr. Harrison. With regard to Trotter, there was no
occasion to make him a party to the deed, and, there-
fore, he not being a party to the bill, had a right to have
it dismissed with costs. Harrison, however, being a
party to the deed, his costs should be taxed, and paid
by the plaintiff. His Honour concluded by directing
that the costs of the plaintiff should be taxed, and that
they should be paid by the defendants.

beginning of Drcember, and sent him away.. I had
five pigs, worth about 11. each. Oa Saturday morning.i
the 9th of December. I went to Gloucester market, and
returned at six o'clock in the evening. when they were
all gone. The next Tuesday I saw two at Samuel
Gardner's. I mgt with another at Frankis's house, and
another at Stroll' market. I never got any of them
again. I knew them directly I saw them by a scissors
mark.
Prisoner---4ather, you do not know where they are
marked.
Samuel Gyde—They were marked on the foreheads'
he bought them, and I paid for them. I told him on
the 6th of December, and again afterwards on the Bth,
of December, he should never do any thing for me
again, or torch any thing of mine.
By she JUDOS—He used to buy and sell for me be
fore that, and eat with me, but slept out. I took him
before the Magistrate on the 7th of March. We have
had no quarrelling since. He was saucy to me the very
next week after the pigs went. I did not send for him
to go to Gloucester market.
Prisoner—Yes, you did, father, ancll sent you part
of the money for the pigs.
Samuel Gyde—His wife gave me a 11. note bill.
Prisoner—Father, I told my wife to give you the 11.
in part payment, and to say I would make up the rest
as soon as I could.
Samuel Gyde—No, his wife gave me the 11. in part
of money owing to me before.
Samuel Gardner—l bought two pigs on the 9th of
December of the prisoner for 11.175. 6d. which I gave
him. I did not know he had left his father's service
then. He used to be in the habit of buying and selling
for his father. His father claimed the pigs the next
day, but I did not give them up:
Henry Frankis and Daniel Estcourt also bought pigs
of the prisoner, which the father claimed, but they did
not give them up.
The prisoner said in his defence that be had sold
hundreds of pigs for his father before, that he sold these
for him, and,ititended giving him the money, and had
sent him 11. in part.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.—It is a melancholy thing to
see a falser prosecuting aUM It is doubtful whether
the prisoner might hot conceive that the authority his
father had given him was not properly put an end to.
It is singular that there was no prosecution until the
7th of March, and if the pigs were stolen, it is strange
that the father did not insist upon having them back.
The prisoner may be a very unworthy son; but you
cannot, under this charge, consider whether he did or
did not embezzle the money, and from the nearness of
the relationship, there is some doubt whether he may
not have mistaken his authority.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Gstiky.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.-4 hope this will be a warn
iog to you. If you ever appear here again, where you
are no stranger, you will meet with no mitigation of
the punishment for the offence of which you may
be guilty.
Henry Workman was indicted for having stolen a
bay gelding, the property of Edward Osborne, out of
"bin field, At Tortworth, on the 18th of February, nes.
Mr. HORACIS Twurs.—The horse was lost on the 18th
of February, 1825, and found the next day in the pos-
*ion of the prisoner, who was suffered to depart on his
promise to produce the person from whom he said he
had got it. This he did nut do, but went away entirely,
and was not heard of until a year and a half after-
wards, when he was taken into custody. He must now
aceount for the way he got the horse.
George Clarke, corn dealer, at Tetbury—l saw the
prisoner on horseback on the .18th of February, 1825,
on my return home from Wotton-under-Edge roarket.
We talked together. Hi praised his horse, and said he
had ridden it from Somersetshire. He told me be was
sent by his father to sell it, and was about to den with
a man of the mime of Simkins. I appointed to meet
him the next morning, to chop his horse for my mare.
He came the next day, and offered me the hone for
251. I went to his quarters to see the horse, and after
bargaining a long while, he agreed to let me have him
for six guineas and my blind mare. He said it was as
bad as giving away the horse. I suspected he had
stolen it, and I therefore took him to the Angel Inn, and
got him into a room, and said, " Young man, you:liave
'stolen this honer and I gave him in charge of the
beadle while I went to Simkins, who came back with
me, and Simkins said, the prisoner had called on him.
The prignier then said, his father lived at Red-hill. be-1
low Bristol ; he would fetch him, and satisfy me about.
the horse. We let him go, but he did not return, and
I never saw him until last September, when I pointed'
him out among a crowd of people at Wotton-under-
Edge, and he was apprehended.
Edward Osborne-_I saw my horse on the evening of
the 18th of February, 1825, and missed him the next
morning, and immediately put out a hand-bill. The
day following the prisoner came voluntarily to me,-and
asked me if I had lost a horse? I told him I had; he
said a horse had been taken op at Tetbury, which an•
swered the description of the bill, and Mr. Clarke had
it; I gave him a shilling and some victuals, and told
him if it turned out to be my horse, I would give him
something handsome, if he would come smother day.
I got back my horse, but the prisoner never came to
me again.
Witnesses were called for the prisoner's character,
but did not appear.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN—The horse was stolen from
the prosecutor's field, and almost immediately found in
the prisoner's possession. The ;resumption of the law
in such cases is, that the party in whose possession it
is, steals it, unless he satisfactorily accounts for his
having it.
Verdict—Guilty. Sentence of Death recorded.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN, after making inquiries of the
governor of the gaol, said, "This is a very bad offence,
but its there is no reason to believe that you belong to
a gang, it is probable your life will be spared ; but you
cannot hope to remain in this country."