The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-02-26 00:00:00

!S.

COURT OF OF CIIANCERY.-B•TveDAT, Fie. 24.

iLLIWPON P. VMS, GLOSSOP, A:4ID OTIIKRS.

Mr. HART said was instructed to make an applies-
fan to the Court for a renewal of the injunction which
Tad been formerly granted, to restrain the defendants
ft-altn performing a drama called " Therese' at the
Coburg theatre.
Mr. AGAR hare interrupted the Learned Gentleman,
a”.l said that if his motion was founded on any facts
:ontained in the former bill or answer, he was en-
titled to make it; but be (Mr. Agar) understood that
revere! new affidavits had been filed yesterday by the
; and it was contrary to the usual practice
. s the Court to allow the omissions in a bill to be sup-
p.ird by new affidavits.
Mr. HART resumed. It had been represented on a
former occasion that an injunction had been obtained
.4;:ainst the defendants without an affidavit being made
the plaintiff. Tins was a mistake, the plaintiff
hied an affidavit, which was sent to the Register of-
ti..e ; and when it was returned from thence, it was
n'ascovered that an erasure, which was quite immaterial
an Itself, but which the practice of the Court required
should be countersigned by the Master, had not received
the necessary verification. The affidavit 's as there-
fore sent back to receive the necessary correction ; soil
on account of this delay it was that it could not be pro-
'lured in Court when called for. He stated this to re-
lieve Mr. Ellistoit from the imputation of having ob-
tained an injunction unsupported by any affidavit. It
was proper also that the Court and the public should
Le set right on another point respecting Mr. Elliaton's
conduct. Oa the morning on which the injunction
was granted, Mr. Elliston sent a note to the defendants,
informing *Wm of the circumtanee, and stating at the
same time, that as the piece was advertised far per-
formance that evening, to prevent disappointment to
time public, he gave his kill permission that it should
he enacted. With respect to the affidavits whirl. were
now proposed to be read to the Court, the Lea: eti
Counsel contended that they contained no mew matter
but what arose oat of the answer of the defendants,
and therefore ought tobe received In the answer of the
.I..fendant!, they deny that their drama is the same as
that of the plaintiff; it was the object of the affidavits
la prove the identity of the two dramas.
The Court observed that it was evident the plaintiff
never meant to take any unfair advantage! of the de-
tendants, and that the circumstance mentioned br Mr.
Hart sufficiently accounted for the fact of Mr. Eliiston
not being ready with his affidavits on a former iicra-
...ion. It was proper, however, that the defendants
should be allowed time to read the new affidavits, and
ace whether they could answer them.
Mr. liana. said that he had no objection to allow

the defendants time, if they required it. They co►►ld
reply most effectually to the allegation of the affidavits
by producing a copy of their drama. The plaintiff
could only prove the identity of the performances by
producing a printed ropy of the piece perfumed at
his theatre, and representing, by parole evidence, the
characters and language of the piece performed at th,•
defendants' theatre. The question at issne might ap-

pear of little importance, When viewed only with re-
spect to one farce; but it became of great importance
when considered with reference to the great property
r sted in the patent theatres. It had lately become
the practice, when a new piece had been produced at
one of the large theatres, awl obtained a large portion
of public favour, fur the proprietors of the minor thea-
tres to send persons to take notes of the performance,
so that they are enabled to play the same piece, to the
?.erious injury of the theatre at which it was originally
produced. The decision of the Court in the present
case would determ'ite whether this practice would !
henceforth be permitted.
Mr. AnAR said that Mr. Elliston haying mole an .
affidavit so incorrect that it could not be received, the
rr.estion was, whether the Court wonld allow his bill
to be amended by new evidence. The Court had al-
sysys maintained that when a person filed a bill he
s'.natid state the whole of his case, and that he should
eat be allowed afterwards to amend it by new evidence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could not de-
Pritaine whether the new affidavits contained improper !
matter until he heard them read. )(the new affidavits
contained matter, not in addition to, but merely in ex- I
pixilation of, the former affidavits, they must be re-;
eared. The defendants Counsel bad better decide
whether they would take time to examine the peti-
tions, or hear them read, and then object to them.
Mr. AGAR.—My Lord, we meet the allegations of
identity by stating distinctly, that we employed and
paid s person for translating our drama frow the
french.
The Loan Cit.sscattott.—lf you prove that, it will
he sufficient for you. If l translate one of Terence's.
comedies, and perform it at my theatre, you will have
richt to translate the same comedy, knd perform it
as, tt would he very different if some of the
s: art hand writers were to get into my theatre and
tarry away my translation as they do every thing else.,
Mr. HART observed, that though the defendants
5r..41 that they had caused a translation to be made'
*rem the French drama, yet they did not say that the
p:cee now performing by them was the piece so
translated. The plaintiff intends to show that his piece
i:. not entirely a translation from the French ; in his
drama the title and characters differ from those of the
; yet it was singular that the defendants, in
rig their pretended translation, had bit upon the
mime title and characters as tlaose adopted by the
phfintiff.

S.
•

The Loan Clicticat.r.on.—Tkat is a very material
means of proof. 1 renieniher that in a•ease respecting
the piracy of the copy-right of a book of roads, it
was found that all the errors contained in the original
I.nrit were copied into the spurious edition. Trot I
trick this piece will be over at both-theatres before
)na decide whether or not )ou will proceed with the
rose.

Mr. Aaaa.—l can only repeat that I know of no
ease in which a petitioner has been allowed to add to
Lis bill by new affidavits.
The I.nao CusireaLLoa.—lle may state new cir-
ii:nstancts. to give additional explanation of• the al-
-1,./ations in his bill, but he must give his cpponent
codex.

Mr. flowr.-1 will wave my affidavits if Mr. Agar
e 11 prodneo the prompter's hook, anti rove that the
vete perbruml by the Jefen:lants is the sumac which
t.,ty tutted to be Ira:Waled- from tie great!).