Court Of Chancery, Monday...
* LAW RJ?PORTZ. lIhe loxRD CEANCELLOR had before given it as his opinion that the plaintiff couTd not succeed in his motion for the znpointment of a manager and receiver, without, in effect, releasing the 11arquis of Ilertford, and the other gentlemen concerned in the bondil, from the obligations of their sureties. MIr. HART now stated that he rras readv to take the cbances of the motion, with the condition only that it snould be taLen without prejudice to the legal liabilities of the sureties. Tihe LoBD CIHAsrCELLOItrepeated a p3S; o'f what he-had urged on the lest hearing, that le could not 7put the property under Ir. E:bers' nanagement, or that of any other person at the suit of lr. Ebers, being also agaist the will of the other parties, without ceec. tuaUly releasmng them from their sureties. MIr. OItRNFE pressed for the costs of the mnotion on behalfof the sureties. The LonD CHANCELLOR theught, that as he had been the slave of the Opera-house so long, the Opera-house might well allow him till to-morrow morning todetermine upon these costs. BLAXEMORE V. GLAMOfGAN'SHIRE CANAL. The rest of the time was taken up in argament upmn a motion to dissolve the injunction, hy which the plaintiff withholds from the Company the power of widening anddeesening altogetfer, andinstead of it, to direct an issue at law, to try wnether the operations of the Comrpany are or are notw*rithin the #7roibitions and provisions of the act of Parliament upon which the injuncdon was first grantcS _Eir- 2her hpar7n.p ftmnrr,t COURT2OF CHANCPREY. Mn%-nhv n- r. OPERA-3O1XRP._Tr v tV- I t