The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-02-22 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST MISS MENKEN,

THE CELEBRATED ACTRESS.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, before Lord Chief.
Justice Cockburn, an action has been brought by the
trustees of Pearce and Court, formerly coach-builders
in Long Acre, against Miss Adah Isaacs Menken, the
well-known actress, upon a bill of acceptance for
£33 Is. 61. The defendant pleaded false representa-
tion, no consideration, fraud, never indebted, pay-
ment, and a set off, itc. Mr. Prentice, D.C., and Mr.
Murphy were connect for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Scrjeant Parry and Mr. Joyce for the defendant.
Mr. Prentice, in opening the case for the plaintiff.
stated that the plaintiffs were trustees under a deed of
settlement made by Messrs. Pearce and Court, who
were carriage builders in Long Acre, and who, in June,
1866, made an arrangement with their creditors. The
fendant was a celebrated actress, who had made
herself conspienonii in the character of Illovppa ; but
he supposed she was of rather extravagant tastes.
Tile sum was for £l2; one part was on a bill of
exchange for £33 Is. 61, and the remainder for re-
pairs done to a brougham. It would be necessary to
state the facts. In 1864 this lady required a brougham:
it was not to be one of an ordinary description, but
one of a very magnificent kind, with very handsome
harness, adorned with silver, and with sets of bells for
the horses. The brougham was sent home in Novem-
ber, 1864, but although it was to be a ready-money
tranaaction, still the defendant only paid 1:100 at
' the time of the delivery, on account An account was
afterwards sent in for £2OB 68. 6J., giving credit for
the £lOO paid. Other accounts were subsequently sent
in, giving credit for other sums paid. In July, 1865.
she went to America, but returned about September
in that year, and another account was then sent
in for £127 Is. 61. The coachlmilders became anxious
for payment, and the defendant then gave two bills
of exchange of equal amounts for £33 Is. 64. each.
She was represented by a Mr. Pender, who acted as
her agent, secretary, or manager. The first bill was
not paid at maturity, but was afterwards taken up,
and the defendant was now sued upon the other, and
that was the action they would have to try.
Mr. Court said: I was a coach builder in Long
Acre. In 1864 the defendant came to my shop. She
wanted • brougham with very handsome curtail'',
lamps to be chased and mounted, with horses run-
ning and rampant ; panels bordered round with
foliage in gold, wheels to be picked out with gold
foliage, white, and bands with white and gilding
round the felloes of the wheels; chased handles to
correspond, and her monogram and crest, viz., a
rampant horse on the panels ; round the roof hand-
some chasedornaments and foliage, and a rampant horse
at each corner; soli 1 works, silver-plated nails to the
wheels, everything else to correspond. The defendant
suggested how it was to be done. There were cigar
pockets inside; the harness mounted elaborately, silver
crest emboased, four sets of bells, two for each horse;
one set of silver for the day time, another set for the
night; a set of horse blankets. The price was £3OB,
4:100 was paid off before the carriage went home, and
£2O was paid on account sent inn December, 1864. or
January, 1865. £l4O has been paid, leaving a balance

of £l7O 14& Repairs were done to the carriage from
time to time. There was a very handsome whip, with
silver ferrules. The order was for cash. On several
occasions I waited on defendant, but did not get a pay.
ment. The witness then went into further explana-
tions.

•:. ant Parry, in stating the defendant's ease,
said tue defendant was placttd at a great disadvantage
in this case, for unfortunately, like professionals, she
did not keep a particular account of her business
transactions. He denied the right of Mr. Pender, her
former secretary, to bind her in any of these transac-
thine, and said with regard to the brougham it was
ordered at Mr. Smith's suggestion, and as a joint
advertisement for both whenever this lady with bells
on her horses and rings on her fingers drove through
the streets of the metropolis. (Laughter). Mr. Smith
gave all the directions with regard to the ornaments.
The brougham was badly built; it let in the rain, and
required alterations. It was a remarkable fact that
this brougham should require repairs a month after it
was delivered, to the extent of over I:14. The unfor-
tunate carriage was now in America, where it had cost
an additional £6O for repairs. He should show that
when this bill was given, MillP Meaken had paid more
than enough to cover it, but from the carriage being in
the United States he could not show how it was
built. . .

—.—
The defendant was called—She deposed that in 1344
she entered into an engagement with Mr. smith, at
Astley's.
Mr. Serjeant l'arry : llow came you to have this
brougham ?
Mr. Murphy objected. It was not material to the
case.

The Lord Chief Justice said the motives for order-
ing it could not be received in evidence. But anything
done in defendant's presence or subsequently ratified
by her could be.
Lefendiud said Mr. Smith suggested the brougham,
and he gave directions as to its character. She was
present when Mr. Smith gave instructions about it.
The rampant horses were suggested by Mr. Smith.
She had now a claim against Mr. Smith. Shortly
after elle bad the carriage the water came in by the
oval glass and the doors when they were shut, and
the mud q.lamhed in and covered her dresses. The
silver came oil with ordinary cleaning, and could net
be renewed except at a great expense. That was little
more than a month after she had it. In July, 1865,
the necessary repairs amounted to £l4 odd. About
that time one of the firm called upon her, and saw
the brougham at the door, and desired it should be sent
to him immediately for repairs, but she declined as he
said they would amount to about ; he suggested
them as being necessary. She never suggested any
alteration, but the brougham so constantly required
repairs that she could not recollect how often it had to
be sent to the builders. _

Some further evidence was then taken, when the
Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that whether
Mr. K T. Smith suggested the brougham, or the de-
tails, or ornaments, or the defendant, was wholly be-
side the question to be determined. He had no doubt
Mr. Smith, who understands catering for the public
as well as any man, might have thought it an addi-
tional attraction to have Miss Menken driving about
town in a brougham, which, by its attracting atten-
tion, was very likely to increase the number of per-
sons likely to visit Astley's Theatre to view the per-
formances. The question was, to whom the brougham
was supplied, and on that point there could be no
doubt, and then had she paid the plaintiffs sufficient
without the last bill which was given in settlement of
the account. There was no legitimate foundation for
saying that Mr. Smith had brought this action because
be had had a rupture with Miss Menken, because, as
one of the trade assignees of Messrs. I'earse and
liountze, be was bound to endeavour to realise this bill
for the benefit of creditors. It was a hard thing on
tradesmen who had furnished articles, sent in their
bill, and asked for payment, and then, having post-
polled further pressure by taking bills, to be told, when
those bills became clue, and the articles removed to a
distant part of the world, and passed into other hands
—to Is, told, we will rip up the whole of the accounts,
and show that the charges were exorbitant. A de-
fendant who conies forward under such circumstances
did come forward under circumstances of considerable
difficulty; but if the defendant could satisfy them that
she had been overcharged, she had a right to do so, and
she was entitled to the advantage.
. . .

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs for t 27 45., being the amount of the balance
less the interest.