Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
The Times, 1824-07-30T00:00:00

LA w Pk 156.n T. potd -di rJX ix aqd MAr.. IINGH? 'to',at,.who'punieridea: that the defendant oilht to-be bound to tlieexactp fnb'is- contract-t.4at a proper receiver shoiuld ibe.appom'e&ioMcre tce applicatibn of the receipts, agreeably, t she Yerms.of that conrractt froxn whicl the ddfaepdant had.no.rilght tQ erv.e3&ordi ugb lt had tikien to an ,uiiprofitible bargsi:,4 there was af&bIaMe-due td ili plainti, who had alw3y' given' hin t.d lindesdtld-that he zould rno stibovt 2tbe accounts of2fhe theiat;e 'to. lii-insp"c-taon. _e; ook Iti the.-efohe, srithout pledge ow =wanty-. n Lonaton pzuhaie,.h6 bougta npig in a poke ;- but he did itconsossly,eaudan tin -o equitable condition fpr throwing up rbetreeinenf': It was contended on the other side bythe o. ctdtEz+ ard Mr. SUGDFgS, that' the eontract w-ba eatirelY fraudlent On e partoftheplaintiff, who had disguised.the fact that thL-theatiewag aconsiderableloss, and had only.prOduced thlsaccountshby lwicis. the defendant mgde that discovery thc day after-theeFecutin5 of the. deeds, though bound to produce thern on the sateday; andlhadb various methods giicn thbe defindant to believe-hatatb e-cpnc adjby a profitable onc. The LoRtD CHANeELLOR said,rhst it did fbi apeiarciear to-hitn that the defendant received any warranty that the tntre producea pronit. The utmost equity whicl he could claim would bhet16ej0 upon the current season in which he took to the contract. But tirp- posing that he eould succeed in obtaining that relief, what was So be one with the produce of the property, whether profit or l'os, durn thie season -of 1824, just concluded, and that of 18-25, should be hl the property so long ? Beside7, if Benelli could succeed in ciddin himselr of the contract, what was to be done with the engeosen4 into which he had entered with peribrmers and other .ers'? Surely, if he gave pp the property, lie was bound w rtore ste Mr. Ebers in the same state, and tno other, and with the same incum. brances, and no others, as those with which hereceived it. Mr. &trGDEIsjUsti6ed the -conduct of Mr. Benelli in-mating en- gagements fbr the present season, because he could not -succeed in Ieturning the property to the plaintiff at once, nor at all, without filing a bill. As in the case of the occupant of a fArm., therefore, he- would necessarily be hound to preserve the psperty unimpgited, si long ab he was compeled to continue in possesmn. The LoRtD CHANCELLO)t. after reviewing the circamstanccs which led to toi i agreemnent. -aitl, that there wias no evidence before hin to prove that Air. Benelli received any assurances that the thea- tre produced a profit. It was not acase in which lie could Venture, npen a motion, to treat this instrument Ks one whicl, tupon the hear. - iny of the cause, mnuat of meceasity be quatshedd. Without doubt,. I.hatever might be the fateof thtat instruoient 2t the heating of the. case, Alr. Benelli was bound by it in the mean time, nur could any of the proceeds of the theatre be applied otherwise than according to the conditions of that agreement until all the conditions were ful.} tilled, wbatever diiaculties he might lave to cope with in settling with perforliers whom he had cngaged. As to the appointipent of a receiver, lperhaps, as the late treasurer, 3r. ALien, uas a man ad. mitted to posses. skill, and o Ihave sh9wn integrity in his of. lice, the parties could not do better than -reinstate hini, -ardluno the Alasterreporting him as fit and worthy, he could receivet ne s\ cessary directions froiti the-CourL as to the appGcation ol the tIind., Upon this last subject, his Lordship requested the parties to signoly their inclinations to him to-muorrow morning. - W\'e were incorrect in stating in our paper of the 2Miinst. tha: the Lord Chancellor had granited An injuunction upon the RPaC imoml Buittler, as a piracy upon the Arcki-itteritural- i)ticloa-. Tn- ' n3atter orpiracy had already been dismissrd bythe Vice.Uhancellor, and was not therefore gone into by te Lord ChanceDor. is Lord- ship considered the question upon enltirely diflerent grounds.name_ ly, that before Nicholson wrote the Pr1'ctical Builder, he hal en- tered into a covenant w ith the party to whom he. sold the AreIhiler. turaI LMetfivnar?l not to write or publish any thing whicb might prove prejpdicial or detrimental to the -ale of that vrork. Thelord Omhancellor's decision then was, that Mr. Kelly should be allowed to go on with the publication of the Practical Bhildernotwith Nicholson's name to it. COURTOF CfLNCFERY. ThUSDAY. Jiff. fH EIlEsJR Y. v. EL.lOPEn1r$l: