The original cause was before the Court several times in August and October 1726.[168] Leave was given to Wilks, Cibber, and Booth to examine Castleman, a material witness for their case, and in no way concerned in point of interest in the matters in question; and upon application that Castleman should pay Steele £468 4s., which was found to be his share of the clear profits for 1725, it was ordered, by consent, that Castleman should pay Steele £200, subject to the order which should be made upon the hearing of the cause. In December leave was given to Steele and Scurlock to examine Castleman as a witness for them. The "answer of William Woolley, Esqre., one of the Defendants to the Bill of Complaint" of Steele and Scurlock, was not put in until the 20th October 1726.[169] It contains nothing fresh of importance. Woolley said he had received £600 of the £900 due to him from Steele, and that £300 was still due, besides interest; and he urged that he was entitled to his £200 a year in preference to all other creditors mentioned in Steele's bill. On the 21st November, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth obtained leave to amend their bill in the case in which they were complainants; and Alexander and Theophilus Scurlock were again commissioned to take Steele's answer.[170] In this answer to the amended bill, which was not sworn until the 11th May 1727, Steele said it was true that he had declared that Cibber's zeal for the _Conscious Lovers_ was an obliging favour and friendship to him, but he was referring to Cibber's care in instructing the actors, &c. Cibber did make several alterations in the play before it was acted, but to its disadvantage, and therefore he did not pay Cibber anything for his meddling. The piece ran eighteen nights, and brought £2,536 3s. 6d. to the house, but how much was paid for charges and how much to him Steele could not say, save £329 5s. or thereabouts, which he received for three author's benefit nights. He could not set forth particular passages altered by Cibber; if he did, it might run him, in vindication of his own performance, into a sort of criticism very improper, as he apprehended, for the entertainment of that Honourable Court.