DIGETED REPORT OF LAW PROCEEDINGS.

JOHNSON v. Dror.—The business of the Vice-Chancellor in this case was to affix a meaning to le words " the English Funds." His Honour decided that "the English Ftind: did not include Exchequer bills, and applied only to Con- sols. (Nov. 28.)

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

KEAN AND Covert.' GARDEN THEATRE.--AB injunction, restraining Mr. Kean from performing atOrary Lane Theatre, had been obtained in the Lord Chan- cellor's Court on Satiratat evening, upon an application ex park by Mr. Charles Keinble, on the part of tlieoroprietors of Covent Garden Theatre ; and on Tues- day last the merits of the cse came on to be argued before the Vice-Chancellor, on a motion to dissolve the nj unction. IF In the year 1828, Mr. Keaiwas under an engagement to perform a given number of nights at Covent Garden Tliatre before the ensuing Christmas ; which engage- ment was interrupted by the ecident which happened to the gas-works of that theatre. It was then verbally agreed by Mr. Kean and the proprietors of Co- vent 'Garden, that the engagenint should be completed after Christmas, and that it should be extended to tv.dve nights, at 50/. night. Mr. Kean per- formed twice and received 1001. h was advertised to appear a third time ; but on the night of performance he was in a contlitior to appear. A few days afterwards, being anxious to postpou! an engagement which his indisposition rendered it almost impossible to perforn, he sent his sentary, a Mr. Phillips, to propose a temporary retirement into the .ountry, to recnit his health ; and on a conference with Mr. Charles Kemble, Mr.Phillips arraged terms of a new en- gagement, embodying the residue of the cirri to be disontinued ; and the same were addressed in the form of a letter to Mr. roan, and onveyed to hint by Mr. Phillips.

"Theatre Royal, (->went Galen, 21st January 1529.

" DEAR Mr. KEAN-4 have great pleasure in acqualuting ye, that the proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre have every disposition to meet your utiles respecting the pro- posals with which you favoured me, through your agent, Mr. Pillips, viz, that you shall be permitted to suspend all your performances here until the slum after next, for the purpose of preparing yourself in two or three new characters ;hat you will be ready, on the commencement of the season 1830-31; to return, when rprired, to your engage- ment in Covent Garden Theatre, of which engagement there relains ten nights uncom- pleted; and which ten may, if you please, be extended tolwent-four nights in the first instance, and afterwards to as many more as may be thoughtuutually advantageous. In the mean time (it is understood) you are not to act in Lonon. And now, my dear Mr. Rena, let me beg of you to fortify yourself in your good volutions. Go to Bute, where I wish with all my heart I could join you ; study your mu parts—for, as Shak- speare says, nothing pleases but rare accidents,' and you own experience must have taught you, that perfection itself without novelty will, 'lithe course of time, ho. come a drug; return to London with renovated health, and run.nother course as pros- perous as the first. That you may do so, is the very sincere %Ash of, dear Mr. Kean,

yours most truly, C. KEMBLE."

Mr. Kean being confined to his bed, sent an instant replyin terms of thankful- ness; and in a postscript added, " I accept the proposals of the Managers of Covent Garden Theatre. E. KEAN. I had nearly forgot ill this." Mr. Kean shortly after left town for his house in the Isle of Bute, ant was unable for some months in the last season to perform any theatrical enougeirint. In the month of September last, being solicited by Mr. Kemble and Mr Bartley, of Covent Garden Theatre, to lend his aid to retrieve the conditionif that house, he pro- mised to give them three nights' gratuitous performances. On his way to town, n the beginning of last month, he had occasion to refer tohis agreement, when it was pointed out to him by Mr. Cooper, of Drury Lane Theatre, that his en- gagement with Covent Garden Theatre was not for the present season, but for the season 1830-31. On coming to town, last Saturday weec, he sent immediate notice to the Theatre; and in consequence communications passed as to the time when Mr. Kean could give his gratuitous performances; and Mr. Kean required that he Should be allowed to perform on his customary nights, Monday, Wednes- day, and Friday,--refusing to perform on what are technically called the " otr- ights;i In the our of the dismissive on this subject; AIr, Kean had intimated

that he had received applications to play at Drury Lane Theatre ; and this pro- duced a notice from the Covent Garden Theatre, that he was under an en

with that Theatre ; to which Mr. Kean made no reply ; and on Friday last he Was announced in the Drury Lane bills to perform the character of Richard the Third on Monday. On the part of Mr. Kean, it was urged that the agreement could not have been deliberately entered into by Mr. Kean ; and that it were monstrous to suppose, that for an engagement for ten rights at a distant period, he who could coin. mend 501. a night should restrict himself from performing in London during the intervening period, at an immense loss. The learned counsel (Mr. Knight and Mr. Wright) contended, that these circumstances, in addition to the evidence of Mr. Kean's inability to attend to business at the time, afforded ground for the relief of a Court of Equity. The absence of mutuality—(it being impossible to en- force the agreement against the Covent Garden Theatre proprietors; though they had their remedies against Mr. Kean)—the absolute impossibility of the Court dealing with such an agreement, so loose and indefinite in its nature—the inde- terminateness of the contract, it being unascertained whether it were for ten or twenty-four nights—the want of the requisite formalities—the fact that Drury Lane Theatre was in Westminster and not in London, a distinction that was specially regarded in the statutes relatint, to the theatres, and in some decisions of the Courts, where the Variance had been ruled to be fatal—the fact of the no- torious insolvency of Covent Garden Theatre,which but for a " brilliant accident" would have been unable to rear its head—and the fact that actors had, under the distressed circumstances of the Theatre, been released from their engagements (for example, in the case of Mr. John Reeve of the Adelphi, whose affidavit proved that such release had been publicly signified by Mr. Fawcett, the then manager)—all these facts were urged at great length by the counsel, as affording strong grounds of legal and moral justification to Mr. Kean. And in support of the objection to the want of jurisdiction in such a case, the authority of Lord Eldon was quoted, in the case of Clarke v. Price ; where Mr. Price, a barrister, being under an engagement to report for Mr. Clarke, the law bookseller, the pro- ceedings of the Court of Exchequer, his Lordship had decided that he could not compel Mr. Price to go into the Court and report. Mr. l'epys being about to answer these objections, the Vice-Chancellor stated, that he bad no difficulty but on the latter point ; on which Mr. Pepys cited the case of Morris and Coleman, in which Lord Eldon had restrained Mr. Coleman from writing for other theatres than the Haymarket. But the Vice-Chancellor, who had been counsel in both these cases, remarked, that in the latter case, the Court had interfered on the ground of partnership, and the mutual covenant of the partners to exert their best ability for the success of the joint concern, which was incompatible with the exercise of Mr. Coleman's talents for another theatre. His Honour also remarked on the utter impossibility of the Court being able to apply its jurisdiction to such a case as the present ; and he therefore dis solved the injunction. (Dec. 1.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCIT.

WESTBROOK V. arsieser.—This was an action against the proprietor of Bell's Life in London, for having on the 23rd November last year inserted in his paper

the following paragraph.

" FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—In the Court of Ring's Bench, on Monday, an action was brought by a man of the name of Westbrook, against Ruthven, the Bow Street officer, for false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been apprehended by Rutlwen on sus- picion of being concerned in the Post-office robbery at Hounslow, hut was afterwards discharged for want of evidence. On searching his premises, upwards of 150 skeleton keys were found. A verdict was found for the plaintiff—Damages Is. which carries costs.

The plea was the general issue, and a justification ; and the Jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff's attorney, a man of the name of Bran-comb, admitted in his cross-examination, that he was the only person who should be benefited either by this or the preceding action against Ruthven. (Dec. 1.)

PRICE V. Atusonsm.—This was an action by James Price, an attorney's clerk, against Mr. Allitigham, an attorney of Hatton Garden, his late employer, to re- cover damages for having given hint such a character as prevented him from ob- taining another situation. The plaintiff's case having been closed, Mr. Denman submitted that there must be a nousuit, as this was an instance of privileged com- munication, and there was no evidence of malice. The case went to the Jury ; and Lord Tenterden told them, that a master was protected against any action for a representation of his servant's character, unless it appeared that he had been actuated by malice, and had made the communication from dishonest motives. The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a verdict for the plaintiff

Damages 70/. (Dec. 1.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

FINDEN V. WESTLAK E.—This action was brought to recover damages for a libel

which the defendant had n concerning the plaintiff who is the son of a respectable architect, and also for a malicious prosecution which had been com- menced against Mr. Finder] by Mr. Westlake. The circumstances of the case are numerous and intricate ; .but the alleged libel was contained in a handbill which the defendant had published, charging the plaintiff with having embezzled sonic bills of which he had the care as the defendant's clerk. The defence was, that the plaintiff's conduct had given good ground for the suspicion of the defendant. The Lord Chief Justice left the case to the Jury upon the bontifides of the publica; tion and prosecution; and the Jury found for the plaintiff—damages 2001. (Dec.2.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

LIABILITY OF SITERIFFS.—An application was toolay made for an order autho- riziug the Sheriff of Worcestershire to refuse to execute a writ of .fieri fiteias, on the ground of his not being sufficiently indemnified. The Court refused the order, and said—" The Sheriff can't refuse to execute the King's writ, when pro- perly directed to him. If a sheriff could on the ground of not being sufficiently indemnified refuse to execute a writ, it would in many cases ;amount to a denial of justice. And as there already exist too many difficulties in the way of a man's recovering his debts, the Court will not add one to the number, and will not ex- onerate a Sheriff from the duties which he has undertaken, except under some very peculiar circumstances, which do rot exist in the present case." (Nov. 28.) ADULTERATING BEER. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MANNING.—This was an infor- mation to recover the penalties which the defendant had incurred by selling to publicans an article called purl bitters, to be mixed with porter, and which en- abled the publicans to introduce into the porter a considerable quantity of water. The case was compromised by the defendant's agreeing to a verdict being entered, to secure one penalty to the Crown, and undertaking that he would never again follow the same occupation. The Solicitor-General said, that the practice of using purl bitters was very general, as it economized the use of malt and hops ; and lie trusted that the publication of this case would put an end to a practice which the officers of the Crown were determined to suppress, and which prevented the lower classes in this country from enjoying that wholeorne beverage which had been provided for am by the act of Parliament. Verdict for thc Crown-2001. (DO. 2,)