The New York herald., 1872-08-13
THE COUR T S.
The Union Square Theatre-An Unpardonsd Con-
vict Going Bail-Business in the
General Sessions.
Legal squabble Over tho Profits OF the
Union Square Theatre.

Legal squabble Over tho Profits OF tho
Union Square Theatre.
Before Judge Barrett.
Edwin G. Gilmore VS.. Robert W. Butler and Sheri-
dan Sh0ok.-As Is well known, Messrs. Gilmore and
Butler were former proprietors Of the Theatre Com
ique This was finally concluded to be too pent-
up place for the crowds throngng there, and be-
sides too far down town to keep pace with the up
town tide OF fashion, the theatre and opera. An
arrangement was accordingly entered into with
Sheridan Shook in July 1870, to hire and at up for
them the present Union Square Theatre. This ar
rangement Mr.. Shook carried out, expendlng some
thirty-seven thousand dollars in fitting up the new
theatre, besides ncurring responsibility for $4,000
rent: While the new theatre was being
there engaged number OF artists to appear at the
new theatre, some OF these contracts being made
own name. Meantime Gilmore, for W the e benefit OF OF
the firm, took the company OF the Theatre Comique
and an, gave performances throughout the country.
understanding had arisen between them and Mr..
Shook, by which the project Of running the Union
Shook ran it alone. The latter employed, however
the company which Butler had engaged In Europe
ing that tSe net pS shoua be dvdsd
between himself and Butler. 1t is now
Bater weTs on that he pa
his expenses to Europe that he has right to one
half of Buffers profits ct the Union Square Theatre,
such profits as alleged, being very large, and
owing to the contracts made their joint account.
Mr.. Butler alleges that Mr. Gilmore bought him
cut before he (I3utler went to Europe; that dur
ing the latter part OF their connection he acted as
his manager ut salary OF sixty dollars week;
that the firm name was kept up to avoid trouble,
count. The case came before the Court on O mo-
tiOn on behalf OF Mr.. Gilmore to dissolve the part
nershlp and to have receiver appointed.
lengthy argument ensucn on the notion Mr.. Il.
Townsend appearing for NJ. Gilmore, Mr.. Edsal
for Mr.. Butler and Mr. ]. l.. Hi, IS counsel for the
partnership being denied by Mr.. Butler weeks
time was given to present affdavits on this point.
An UApardoncd Convict as Surety.
MARITIME v. Lowenstien.-On the justification Of a
surety to an offered bond to the above entitled
action objection was taken by the plaintiff that the
surety having been convicted of q felony could not
justify. The defendant claimed that he was not
disqualified, his offence-receivinR stolen goods
having been merely punished by fine and not by
Imprisonment in State Prison, and that the ustifca
tiOn OF sureties neither the action nor proceed
ing mentioned in the statute. Judge Barrett
thought the object OF the statute was to deprive
his decision until the defendants counsel should
hand him authorities, which they claimed justified
the acceptance OF the surety.
Desiring to Reform Not = Crime.
In re Jennie Woodward.-Some time since Jennie
was committed by Police Justice to the House Of
the Good Shepherd. She was brought before the
Court on writ of habeas corpus and her release
asked for on the ground that the commitment did
person, but merely stated that she was "a person
protesting desire to reform OF which she was con-
ViCted." Judge Barrett decided that this was no
crime and ordered her discharge