Star.
London, England, 1819-02-13 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

LENT ASSIZES.-MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

=NODS SID ILOSSIST DALLAS, [NT. AND SID JAXIS scasouGn, ENT.

Noneumgrroxinuaa—Saturday, February 27, at Northamptoc
Run...un--Friday, March 5, at Okeham.
I.I34COLNSIIIIIE—Saturday, March it, at the Cantle of Lincoln.
..—ne day, at the City of Lincoln.
__ _

Orr or

Norrprocamsitiaz—Friday, March 12, at Nottingham.
Toi►r or NoTrixonalc—game day, at the Town of Nottingham.

Dvawrinnau—Wednesday, March 17, at Derby.
LucicsrEasutat--Baturday, March 20, at Leicester Castle.
Boaouckt or Locarraa—Same day, at the Borough of Leicester.
CITY or Covxmvar—Friday, March 26, at the City of Coventry.
Waawiccaulaz—Saturday, March 27, at. Warwick.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEBRUARY 12.
OI'ERA HOUSE.
WATERS V. TAYLOR.

Mr. ROUPELL asked, if it would be convenient to
his Lordship that Counsel should now proceed on this
long-litigated case? He was induced to make that
request from the circumstance of the Court having,
on a former day, ordered it to stand for hearing as
tkis day.
Mr. HART stated, that he could have no objection
to the case being proceeded in ; but he submitted to
his Lordship, whether it would be proper now to go
on with it, as it was generally understood that mo-
tions of course were to have preference to every thing
else. It was impossible for any man to say what time
the Opera House might occupy, if it was now at once
to he entered upon.
The LORD CH AxcELLott ordered it to stand ever
till all the motions of course were heard; because he
knew, from frequent experience, that if the Opera
House were once to come on there would be an end
of all other business for the day.
The case was not gone into when the Court rose,
at three o'clock.

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

COOKE V. GI.OSSOP AND TIIE DRUItY-LANE COMPANY.

'I he Souctron-GKNEnm, moved, on the part of
the plaintiff, for a similar injunction to that which
wni granted on a former day, in another case where
the Drury-lane Company was also concerned. The
injunction which he sought for was, to restrain the
defendant (Glossop) from proceeding in an action
which had been commenced, and to restrain him from
commencing any other action. lie believed Sir Ar-
thur Piggott, who was on the other side, had no ob-
jection to the motion. The object of the motion was,
to clefimt the priority of certain creditors; and it was
necessary that it should be granted, unless a com-
promise was agreed upon between the parties. As,
. however, the fiction stood for trial, he hoped the pre-
sent motion would be zranted.
The Loup Cu.% NC ICI.LOR intimated his assent.
The Soi.ici ron-GENEnAr...—" I will take it, then,
until further order."

lY TIIE MATTER OF RMANT, DUFFIELD r. STEWART,

The Lotto Ctt scio.r,om, on coming into Court
this morging, said, as Mr. Duffield was not a party
to Mr. Brynnt's petition to supersede the commission
of bankrupt awarded against him, he could not, on
that account, grant the injunction asked for; and in-
timated, that any person who should buy the Reygate
Estates, under the existing circumstances, would be.
k hold man indeed ; and recommended Mr. Bryant
to give due notice of the objections at the time of
sale, if he did not, on better information, in the mean
time grant the injunction.