denied that he had threatened to give the deed to Gery, or had entered into any engagement with Gery for that purpose. The deed was still in his hands or power. He was never taken into council by Steele and Minshull, except that he paid, subsequently to the assignment of the 31st January 1717, £70 to Hugh Reason, Esq.,[158] for Steele by order of, and with the money of, Minshull, and had also seen several notes which Steele drew on Minshull, which he believed were paid by Minshull. There is no record of this case having ever come before the Court, and there are no answers to Steele's Bill from Minshull, Gery, or Woolley. Fresh arrangements were entered into in 1723, as will be seen below. III. STEELE AND SCURLOCK _v._ WILKS, CIBBER, BOOTH, CASTLEMAN, AND WOOLLEY, 1725-8. (Page lxviii.) In their bill, dated 4th September 1725, the complainants,[159] after describing the Indenture Quadrupartite of June 3, 1724,[160] the Articles of Agreement of September, 1721,[161] the Indenture between Steele and Woolley of June 17, 1723, and the note to Castleman of July 17, 1723,[162] said that they well hoped they should have had the benefit of the assignment and letter of attorney to Scurlock for the payment of Steele's debts and incumbrances, and that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth would have ordered the treasurer of the theatre to have paid and duly accounted with Scurlock weekly, and for all arrears due to Steele at the time of the assignment, as in all justice and equity they ought to have done, the rather because Woolley had been long since paid the £900 due to him, together with all interest thereupon. But Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, confederating together with Castleman, their treasurer, and with Woolley and others, to defraud the complainants of their just right, and to elude the force of the assignment made by Steele for the benefit of his creditors, refused to come to any account with the complainants touching the profits, pretending that the charges they had been put to in finding clothes, scenes, &c., had been so great that they had made little or no clear profit, and yet they at the same time refused to disclose their expenses; and at other times they pretended that Steele by himself or his agents had from time to time received his full share of the profits; whereas the complainants expressly charged that the profits, over and above all expenses, had been very great, and that neither Steele nor any person acting by his order had received any but a very small and inconsiderable part of his share of the profits since the time of his entering into partnership with Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, and that there was now a very great sum owing to him. And at other times the defendants, and especially Woolley, pretended that the £900 secured for Woolley was not yet paid, and that until that was paid the provisions for the other creditors could not and ought not to take place; but the complainants expressly