Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

COL. KNOX, M.P., AND THE COVENT-GARDEN…

News
Cite
Share

COL. KNOX, M.P., AND THE COVENT- GARDEN OPERA-HOUSE. The case of Colonel Knox v. Gye was argued in the ^ourt of Chancery about the middle of last January. () i^e court took time to consider the verdict, and on Tuesday the Vice-Chancellor Wood delivered his judg- ?^nt. It was a suit on the part of Colonel Brownlow Mox, M.P., te recover from Mr. Frederick Gye, the ^ssee of the Italian Opera-house, Covent-garden, 7*5,000 which he advanced to Mr. Gye to enable him carry on the opera in the season of 1852. Colonel jQox also claimed from him one-half of a sum of jj-2,000, which the late Mr. Thistlethwayte bad ad- for the carrying on of the theatre, and w&ich J his will he bequeathed in moieties to Colonel Knox Mr. Gye. With regard to the claim of ^5,000, Gye's defence was that Colonel Knox advanced 5!*? money on the understanding that if the season of o&2 were not a profitable one there was to be no re- PaYment that the season, instead of ywding profit, ,,aa a disastrous one; that Mr. Gye» being desirous tk!^ Colonel Knox should be regaW> proposed that arrangement as to repayment should be ex- Z^sd to the season of 1853, but thai likewise was an fortunate season. Accordingto Mr. Gye s version of ? e affair the advance of < £ 5,000 wag made under these ^cui-astanees :—Colonel Knox, being on a visit to 5r> Gye, inquired about the affairs of the theatre, and coding that Mr. Gye wanted money to assist him in ^frying out his views. Colonel Knox said he had an a°Uual income of < £ 7,000, as well as a large amount of Cumulated interest upon his Irish estates; that he j ?ad only one child to provide for, and as the loss of a thousands would be of little importance to him, ?e would see Mr. Gye through his difficulties. As a I further defence, the statute of limitations was set up in bar of the claim. With reference to the claim of one-half the interest which Mr. Thistlethwayte had in -tae^theatEe, the defence was that that interest perished OH the destruction of the theatre by fire a few years ago. J n.^r\ Giffard and Mr. Townsead appeared for r J jpkfotiffa; and Mr. Rolt, Mr. Hobhou.se, and Mr. y ?or defendant. n "he Yice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said this came forward in a new phase. In a former suit olonel Knox attempted to establish a partnership himself and Mr. Gye, in the undertaking the Royal Italian Opera, and he asked for an ^e°unt of profits on the footing of such partnership the time when he advanced money in respect of j t?6 concern, up to the moment of filisg his last bill, othe previous occasion, the court was clearly of P^ttion that the case had altSgether failed as to a «**«ship, and the bill on that respect waa dismissed aplf Cos.^s- the court, at the same time, thought it- entitled with reference to certain statements made !S defendant's answer as to the real character the advance of £ 5,000, and which were to the- that if any profits should be made in the con- Cel;n Colonel Knox should be repaid, to direct an in- ^y to ascertain whether there were any and what Profits out o £ which the < £ 5,000 might be repaid. court also thought it right to allow the plaintiff r^&mend his bill, or to file a supplemental bill with JL^rence to his claim of one-half of the share of Mr. fbistlethwayte in the Opera-house, the plaintiff rising in his bill stated incorrectly that Mr. Thistle- l ^yte by deed assigned that share to him and the- pendant in moieties, whereas the shares passed to ^em under Mr. Thistiethwayte's will. The decree Lo a ^ormer SR^ was submitted to the revision of the Justices, and although they agreed with this I dirs no partnership had been established, they 90 °6a the plaintiff to pay, not the whole of the costs B *ti°n to the question of partnership, but the of < £ 250, which was probably not one half of the sts incurred by the defendant. The Lords Justices a missed the bill altogether, but gave leave to the ^amtiff to file a bill with reference to the advance of r^OOO, and one-half of Mr. Thistiethwayte's charge 111 the concern. The plaintiff had accordingly filed the present bill. The court had to make out as best it Could out of the very scanty means placed before it what was the arrangement between the parties, for in this case, as unfortunately happened in other cases ^here persons had confidence in each other, the ar- rangement was not put in writing. As to the advance of X5,000, eounsel for the defendant said, amongst other things, that it could not be recovered^by Colonel ICnox until he had paid a further sum of X5,000 to the of the Italian Opera, inasmuch as the C5,000 J3 now claimed was advanced nnder a bond whereby Undertook to pay < £ 10,000 into the concern. Bat rt»lail3Wer to that argument was, that Mr. Gye had su #t Ga^e<^ upon Colonel Knox to pay the further Q, ?1 of < £ 5,000 under the bond, and the court was of that Colonel Knox was not under any obligation to make a further advance of There was no evidence to show that this moment any such contract could be gi8ted on. As to the defence that the statute of ^utations barred the plaintiff's claim to be repaid the T—.OQO which he had advanced, the court was of "Mhion that this was a case not of debt bat of trust ween the parties, and therefore that the statute of did not apply to it. The money was ad- !f^eed distinctly on trust that it would be employed in Joying on the Italian Opera, it was paid into the ac. 0llat of the Italian Opera, and Mr. Gye would have Or4raitted a breach of trust if he had applied the 0Qey to his own private purposes, but there was no ferment that he did so. Upon the whole of the 6viden3e the court arrived at the conclusion that the a.rrangement between the parties was to this effect, Qa»t whenever the opera should yield profits sufficient the purpose; Colonel Knox should be repaid the r^iOOO, and that that arrangement was in force ntil Covent 'Garden Theatre was rebuilt, and longer, Colonel Knox having distinctly de- nned to have anything to do with the new Qeatre. The ease with reference to Mr. Thistle- awayte's share was similar to Colonel Knox's claim, n° far as regarded the period of its duration. It ap- peared by the evidence that Mr. Thistlethwayte, in of his bringing X12,000 into the ooncern, was to be owner of one-third of the capital, and th i to one-third of the profits. In conclusion, v ice-Chancellor directed an inquiry to ascertain n "at, if any, had been the profits of the undertaking the new theatre was built, after making an allow- < £ 1,500 a year to Mr. Gye as manager, in order ■rrsuch profits, if any, the claim of Colonel iw <fi,4afieSjSect of the £ 5,000, and of the bequest of fiinl !^ayt0. might be satisfied. The Vice- hancell that the question of the coats of ?s f ,f_ePend materially upon the question whether or not therewere any BPgh profits. -c;:

il. WOBKING MAN'S FIRESIDE.

SUICIDE OF A FRENCH IGENTLEMAN…

LIFE RAFTS.

COLLIERY ACCIDENT NEAR WIGAN.

THE MURDERESS CHARLOTTE WINSOR.

MELANCHOLY DEATH OF LORD ST.…

THE JAMAICA QUESTION.

THE LATE DR. WOOLLEY.

REMARKABLE LETTERS OF STEPHENS.

CRUEL CASE OF DESERTION AND…