The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-21 00:00:00

- • - •
COURT OF CUANCRIIT, N0r.20.
COVINT•GARDIN THIATItt.-4701411T V. IMMO.
Mr. HAIM moved the Conrt to set aside the deed of part.
nership which allies the parties in the above named pro.
perty; and for the appointment of a ',wirer to the estate.—
't he grounds of the motion %ere laid in mismanagement,
sod• in the imperfect 'powers left in the deed to the plaintiff
for theeorrection of abases.
• after Mr. Heald, Mr. Shadwell, and Mr. James, were
heard on the part of several of the proprietors, and Mr.
H. Twin on behalf of Mr. H.-thrris, against the

eiotion,
The LORD CRANCELLOR said, that formerly there was
sufficient discretion in the owners of places of public
amusement to convince them of the impoliey of bringing
their affairs before the joristlictions of the country. But,
unfortunately, is Lord Tharlow's time, some of them had
been rash enough to bring the Royal Circus into this
Court t and since then almost every theatre had become
the inbject of ttair Firoreeiiinee in turn. They had the
Haymarket, Drury Lane. the Olympic, and, above all, that
snort expensive and troublesome, and never to be settled
business of the Opera House. So that it would really form
a very curious document, if any gentleman would take the
pains to calculate hew many hours of the time of the Court,
and 'how much expense. bad been wasted upon theatrical
investigation, from that unfortunate ictroduction of the
Itnyal Circus down to the present time. He had, o* every
occasion of this kind which had come before him, given the
best advice be could to the parties, which was, either sot
to come within these walls, or, having got there already, to
make the greatest possible haste in getting out
again. If there were any person most preemi-
nently ill qualified to manage a theatre, it must
he the Lord Lord Chancellor of -England. It was
in this view of the
.present cue, that he now advised the par-
ties tosettle the business out of court. If, however, he was
to be compelled to pronounce upon it, which could not be
until the second seal after term, he must in the mean time
read over, not only this deed of partnership of 1842, but
eso the deed of 1813, and all the affidavits. Perhaps that
would not be sufficient. If the representation of Mr.
Harris's counsel were correct, not only must he inquire how
far the management was controlled by the deed of 1813,
Lot also what were the customs of the theatre in regard to
some of the particulars. By the law of partnerships, at
all times difficult to expound, the partners might be bound
in different degrees of responsibility, according to the in-
terest they held, and the contents of the partnership deed.
In this case it appeared that Mr:' Cont was not only
executor as represented in the plaint of the bill, but that
be bad a life estate in the property which was the subject
of it. Art it appeared to him at present, if the Court had
to pronounce generally upon the deed of partnership, he
stored be ready to say, that the Court could never acknow-
ledge such a deed to be applicable. He hoped, however,
that the parties would contrive to settle it without his in-
terposition. •
Mr. HART offered to sell the eighth which Mr. Const
1,e1,1, to the defendants, oa the proportion of the rental of
10,5001., according, to the offer which bad been wade to
Lim, as the defendants averred.
Mr.. Twigs said, that they could not now give him that
Price. because the property had considerably deteriorated
in value since the offer »as made. They were ready to
boy it, however, at a valuation.
/flue Loa/ CHANCELLOR again recommended thee this
offer should he considered by or before the 6th of December
bat.
.44
VICE-CH A ISTCRLIAM'S CO URT.—TH URSDAY.

REVETT V. DANIEL WIIITTLE HARVEY.
Mr. HEALD said. this was a bill filed by the plaintiff in
order to obtain from his Honour en order, restraining the
tiefentlant front all further proceedings in an action com-
menced by him against the former, for ese recovery of a
sam of money, alleged to be due by him to the defendant;
tied also, that the accounts between the patties might be
referred to the Master. In this case, the circumstances
were these:-1n the year 1617, the plaintiff, who was then
a minor, applied to Mr. 11 arvey for some pecuniary assist-
ance, and accordingly it was agreed that he should grant
him an annuity of 3001. a-year, payable 'notably. On re-
ceiving professional advice, Mr. Revett reduced the annuity
to 1501. This was paid during three years, and in 1821,
when the plaintiff was of age, a meeting took place between
the parties. At that time a settlement took place, and an
instrumint was drawn up, with a blank left for the amount
of the stem due from Mr. Revett. This was afterwards
lifted by the figures denoting the sum of 12151. This, it
Was stated, was filled up by Mr. Harvey; the true amoent
only being about 450/. The object of this application was,
euerefore, to induce the Court to direct the cancelling of
Oat instrument, and that the Master might examine the
accounts as they then stood, and make his report as to their
real state. a
Mr. HORN, on the other side, tread the answer of Mr.
Harvey, in which it was stated, that no original agree-
ment had taken place for 3001., and that the stun always
proposed was 1501. He had advanced Mr. Revett a
sum of 12001, besides the annuity; the deed which the
I:l•intiff mentioned in the bill had been filled up by the
Oentleman himself, and not even in the presence of Mr.
Harvey. In proof of this, that the figures of the 12151.
were more like those of the plaintiff than those of the de-
fendant. Besides this he had advanced Mr. Revett a
!ism of five hundred pounds since that instrument bad
been drawn up. As to the demand of cancelling the
instrument, if that request were to be complied with, by
the Court, Mr. Harvey would be deprived of the mean
of enforcing his just claim ; for he had given up the
v•metiers for the different sums .advanced by him, at the
time the settlement of the accounts bad taken place ; it
also stated that the sum of 12151. was not sufficient to
corer his demand.
The Vice CHANCELLOR-4 wit of /Tieing that I might to
grant the prayer of this bill. Mr. Harvey retorts the aces-
estion of filling np the bill with 12151. upon Mr. Revett.
Now be shoold have knows, as a professional man, that it
was most irepro?er to allow a young wan, like this, to fill
it op. without having come witness present, on his part.—
On that ground, I shall direct the instrument to be cancel.
led. Mr. Harvey also states, that he has given up his
vouchers, and, by that means will be unable to obtain the
liquidation of his debt. This he also knew he should not
have dose ; but, if the debts are well founded, there is no
doubt that he will be able to prove them before the Master.
On that point, I am also disposed to direct the Master to
itemise the accounts. On the subject of costs, I must
however, say, that as Mr. Revett has charged Mr. Harvey
with having filled up this instrument by the 12151. and has
produced no proof of his assertion, I think that, though he
bas right to claim the fulfilment of his prayer, by the Court,
yet consider it naY duty to direct, that it be without
Jets.
COURT OF KINON BENCH, Nov. 20.
DEPRAVITY IN AN ATTORNEY'S CLERK.
Mr. Cut rev said he moved the Courtin a very distressing
case of misconduct in a young man articled to an Attorney
of this Court residing in the country, preying fur a rule to
show cause why be should not be at liberty to transfer the
young. man's indentures to serve his time with some other
Attorney. The party on %tarts, behalf lie moved had re•
ceived a very small premium, namely, one hundred gui-
neas. The young man had, it appeared, seduced the At.ur•
ney's daughter, a child under 14 yearsof age, just returned
from school, and was, beside, detected in an attempt upon
the servant girl. Thus it turned out he was discovered to
be a very depraved character, and on that grouted it was
sehmiued the Attorney had just CROW to desire to get rid
of him. The father of the young man would not contest
',transfer his articles, but was willing he should give them