The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
MORRIS v. COLMAN.
This was an injunction obtained by the Plaintiff
on a former occasion, to restrain Mr. Colman, the
Defendant, from composing or disposing of any of
his dramatic writings to any other theatrical concern
but the Haymarket Theatre, grounded upon the
deed of contract entered into between Mr. Colman,
Mr. Morris, and the other Proprietors of that con-
cern.
On Monday last, Mr. HART, as Counsel for Mr.
Colman, moved to dissolve the injunction, upon the
grounds, that Mr. Colman, by the terms of that deed,
had not an opportunity of ascertaining or receiving
a specific or fair remuneration for his theatrical pro-
ductions; but such compensation depended wholly
upon the will or caprice of the other Proprietors of
this concern. In some cases they might act with a
degree of liberality, while in others they might be
equally confined, as in the instance of the Play of
The Africans; for that production Mr. Colman re-
ceived a sum of 11001. but perhaps for the next he
would only receive 2001.—His only object being either
to receive some specific remuneration, or have an op-
portunity of a fair competition with other theatrical
writers, in presenting his works to other theatrical
establishments, and therefore he now sought to dis-
solve the injunction.
In pronouncing judgment in this case yesterday,
the LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that before he
would give his final opinion, he should once more
read over the deed in his closet with the most scru-
pulous attention. He considered the contract en.l
tered into on the part of Mr. Colman by this deed,
as that of several nterchauts entering into a co-part-
nership. where the exertions of each were to be for
the mutual and general benefit of the whole. Mr.
Colman, by his contract, was to supply them with
his dramatic productions, the other Proprietors were
to contribute their proportion in the respective duties
they each had contracted to perform, for the benefit
of the general concern. His Lordship perfectly re.
collected when the affairs of the Haymarket Thee.
tre were in a declining state, until Mr. Foote, by
engaging to exhibit his productions, and perform in
them himself, had improved the general concerns.—
He would put this as a case betwean Mr. Colman and
Mr. Garrick, wherein the one had engaged to furnish
his dramatic works, the other, to perform in them
for their mutual benefit ,• is that caw he should con-
sider the contract as binding upon the one to write, as
upon the other to act, and upon this ground he was
unwilling to remove the injunction at present; but
as no man was infallible, and he was one of the last
men who would inscribe infallibility to himself, and
was always most open to conviction when he was sa-
tisfied his judgment was erroneous, he would once
snore peruse this deed with attention, and give his
fival opinion on a future day.

, COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, JAN. 11.
LF.3iIINatIAM P. FRAZER.
In this case the Plaintiff was master of Sir John
Cass's school, Bishopsgate, the Defendants, Messrs.
Frazer and Co. eminent bankers in Condell. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 821. 10s.
which the Plaintiff alleged to have been paid into
the Bank, to tae credit of his account, on the 24th
March, 1810. The trial of this cause occupied the
Court for upwards of six hours, and was not 'so
important from the magnitude of the sum sought
to be recovered, or the novelty of the question, as
from its involving the moral ..!,aracter of the par-
ties. On the part of the Plaintiff, it appeared, that
he made two payments in'o the Defendants' bank,
on the 24th March, 1810. the first was on the
morning of that day, fer 371. Is. which was not
disputed ; the other in the afternoon, amounting
to 821. 10s. (the sum in dispute). The first payment,
as also the latter,. were made by a boy of the name
of Payne, about 15 years of age, who had been
one of the Plaintiff's pupils. On the latter occa-
sion be was accompanied by a schoolfellow, whom
he met in the street; and from their evidence it
appeared he paid the specific sum, composed of
notes and cash, to one of the clerks in the bank ;
• they saw him make the entry in the pass-book, and
it was returned by Payne to the Plaintiff. A Mr.
Peacock was present when the money was delivered
to Payne, to lodge in the bank, and heard it
counted to him ; he was also present on his return,
and having remonstrated with the Plaintiff, for en-
trusting so young a boy with so much money, the
Plaintiff pointed out to him the entry in the pass-
book, as a proof of the correctness and fidelity of
his youthful messenger. Payne spoke positively to
the person of the cleak to whom he made the pay-
ment of 821. 10s. ; and in the subsequent examine-
tiou the clerk swore as positively that no such pay-
ment was made to him on that day. It further ap-
peared, that the 24th of Match, falling •ei aintesry,
was usually a day of double business at the banking-
houses of the Metropolis, and that on the evening of
the same day, after the business of the bank was
eosed, the effects of the concern were removed to a
n.e.v banking-house in the neighbourhood, where the
tl.iness commenced on the following Monday, and
;116 continued ever since. It also appeared, that
some additional clerks were employed as tellers on
that Saturday, to receive the payments made into the
batik by their respective customers.
On the part of the Defendants several of the clerks
were examined, and the banking-books produced,
from which evidence it appeared that no such ,pay-
ment was made, nor the trace of any entry in the,
books, of any‘,;:ayment made to that amount on that
day; but that on the following Monday a payment'
was made to that precise amount, by another customer
of the house, which, by the error of one of the clerks,
was ascribed to the credit of the Plaintiff; but the
mistake being immediately discovered, was as soon
rectified. It also appeared, from the usual mode of
receipts, and making entries of payments into the
bank, that had any sum been purloined or misplaced,
it would be discovered on balancing the accounts at
the close of the day's business.
To this evidence, on the rare of the Defendant,
Mr. TOPP114111) for the Plaintiff, made a most able re-
ply ; and
Lord ELLENBOROUGN having summed up the evi-
dence to the Jury, upon this conflicting testimony,
left the question to their decision.
The Jury found a verdict for the Defendant.

.~..,a,

...qr.