Cuthbert Burbage brings a countersuit against Giles Allen in the court of Requests over the dismantling of the Theatre. Burbage charges that Allen is using the non-renewal of the lease to bring an action of trespass against him. According to the terms of the earlier lease, the Burbages had the right to carry away any part of the Theatre building before the term of the lease had expired; Burbage implies here that he was following the terms of the lease on the assumption that Allen was sincere in his promise to renew. Allen is now trying to claim the value of the Theatre building in recompense, the burden of which expense, if Allen should prove successful, will fall on Burbage. Arguing that Allen was in conscience still bound to the terms of the original lease, Burbage asks that the case be tried as a matter of equity. Burbage states that upon several occasions he requested Allen to draft a new lease, and that Allen promised he would do so, but continually deferred the process. Since the original twenty-one year term expired, Allen has suffered Burbage to remain on the premises, and accepted rent from him. Cuthbert Burbage suggests that this may be one reason why his father held back a portion of the rent. Upon several occasions towards the end of the ten-year period, he claims, James Burbage spoke to Giles Allen about renewing the lease. Burbage had a new lease drawn up, which Allen pretended he would sign, but did not. Burbage notes that there was a great deal of contention between Allen and one Edmond Peckham over the title to the Theatre property. The controversy prevented James Burbage from enjoying fully the terms of the lease; moreover, he was often forced to employ men to prevent Peckham from seizing the premises.