, 1875-10-19
H00lEY TALKS BACK,
His Reply to Haycrly...A General
Denial Of tho Lnttcr's Bill.
History Of the Thea rical Partnership
Between Hooley and Ma5uiro.
Richard lssetla that Theuaas Ezt.satd III, Psgtf,
in Dealing With lta1erI}.

Tho answer Of Richard II. Tooiey to tho com.
plalnt OF John II. llavoriy denea that Mcguire
hhA beon engaged fn gfring minH.rel pctIo,m-
aslces In Chicago at HooIos's Theatre. OF that no
| hsd charge OF the California Mit,atrels Hireo
July fAst, except temporarily uudcr tho ditcc-
tion Of tho defendant And shA. hc does tot
know what inducements were held out 10 Ilay-
cr1y by Magusro to Join him in business, Or
whether any woso: hut defendant bcIis7ca tia.
whatever arrangement was made in this bohaif
1t waa with tho full knowledge o! the righla of
tho defendant and was made aecretly aud clam
deatnoly with view 10 advantages to ho derived
On tie part Of the complainant Aud Mcguire to
tho injury Of tho defendant.
Mr. Hoolcy avers HaYcriy and ,fagulre had 40
right 10 enter Into any agreement for copa1t-
nership By which any rights could bo acqurot,
al claimcd in tho bill, without his concurrence
rh'ch 10 expressly denfes Was erer given !;
tetll"r had Mcguire any right to mako suy
| agreement with lIAs c1fy or aus other noreou.
Hooles expressly dcmes that Mcguire over
hela or Ia" ans valid loase VI tho theatre In
| question. aEd TINT 10 poyer had any TtshtB III
sail rehlseh that he c.uld tEanAfnr to anybu1y.
hceafo,If, sha aaa'5usncnt at certain coasracss
| bot"e"n MaFiFe NIL tam acsoin, tho defend.
ant charges il.at ii an' eush'conttacts exist they
xers inaae fol the bene;: Of Tho defendant, aud
Masn'Fe sial no right 10 asAgn the snme.
| |GIEt4AHut &4aAkb l4at H3.HlfG Ma4 Tho l1Jb8D
Of tho ts.estse fr,m May D. 1870. 10 about Juiy
3, Ut witch ;iIno bis Lease cu]cI. and that noeo.
tiat'ons then commenced fur admitting
3iasuIro into the JOINT management of
the Theatre but tne:o ncEoia4ons were naycr
completed, and Mayni1b mover acquired nuY
rlgh.t by VII tile Of thcm. and .nat whatever NAV
havo beer, the acts Of Mcguire III holding him.
neil out to tug fubl'c al proprietor of tlo tLea-
tre atseE tie date na1nod, tAoy wore unau.tor-
| tied hy defendant.
Uooles ttates TINT mcguire Lad n, right to
put IlavcrIy in possession Of tue thestre, ,s
give him ahy rights the1 csn. such III hs calula Ia
mare; that. eYen admitting, BaId .preeuiel
icaBe bosween Simon qIlnl,n and Ms,ntre
TO be valid ieaBe the ass,sumeu. thereof
III forbidden by thu terms Of tho lcasc.
ana Mcguire was utterly po"etcss 10 assign tho
naft1o 30 .as to give the complainant any rights
Hereunder. and tho defendant den,ea tia. Jonn
| Z. Haincs had any right to interfere in tho thea
tre in any way whnteyer which fact defendant
AYERS WAS vol known 70 tue complainant.
The defendant avers further that ue was In
| tho CITY Of Chicago and IN nnd about tito thea
Ire. either BY h,mse1f or his agents, all tue time
during which tho complainant claims Lc was
| mixing these sald Investigations With view to
lsaEraneement With Magalre and tho defendant,
during all Of the time. WAS in poHBcssiop Of tla
theatre properly. sli Of winch Has we'll kuovn to
| tho complainant, and the defendant clarSeH
tnat tue complainant bsd full knowledge Of all
these facts. and that Maguire had no night to
| assign said leAaa md 10 K1vo SAID c3mpleInxnt
| thcfeof.
The defendant demos that the complainant
never bad any notice that the defendant was the
proprietor Ut Hooleg's TAea:ro Until after tho
| complainant had commenced business.
The defendant denies that Quinlin ever AZ
seated to tho assignment OF thu loase. or recog-
nlzed SAID leaec as valid aud binding for Any
| pui pose whatever.
Tho defendant says he knows nothing Of CON-
plsinant paylng ont any xuns Of money for tho
| tlehtre, aud aRys tint he Informed hun thst hn
had no nghte IN the proml4es. Tho defend
snt AYERS that the arrangement between
Maeuire and Hayeriy is preiudicial to
his rachts. aud deples that any Warranty deed
Was nado to t}uinu other than in trust for the
purpose of indemntfylug Qu,nlih 10 cona1era-
tioa Of bis becoming bis hurety, aud that no
over lad any ercfet lntereatin the businoss with
Mcguire. Tho defendant aseEe that hc beeyee
Magu,re to 10 inso!vent. mud that ho has left
Chicago with view Of never returning.
The csoss-btl Aleges stlirlnatlyely tho same
facts developed in tho Answer. and prnyB for ar
accounting. tho appointment Of Geceiycs. aud
the issuing Of an injunction restraining Mcguire
aud llaverlr from IN any manler interfering wish
Aoolcy'a enjoyment OF tho pTemHed.