The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-25 00:00:00

gain ant Volta.

THE GREAT WIGNER CASE.
THE trial of the much-celebrated case of Lumley v.
Gye has occupied the Court )f Queen's Bench during
three entire days of the past week. The circum-
stances out of which the action has arisen are sutfi
ciently notorious, as well as the fact that damages
were laid at no less an amount than 30,0001. Plead-
ings and evidence on both sides were correspondingly
voluminous, and nine eminent counsel were retained
for the respective parties, Sir F. Thesiger leading for
the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General for the de-
fendant.
For Mr. Lumley a chain of evidence was offered to
establish four successive pdnts—that he had en-
gaged Mlle. Wagner to sing at his theatre during the
season of 1852 ; that the lady did not fulfil her en-
gagement; that such non •fulfilment arose from the
act of the defendant ; and that the plaintiff had suf-
fered loss and damage from the circumstance.
Upon the first point Dr. Bacher was the principal
witness. He said:—
"lam a native of Germany and doctor of civil law. I am ac-
quainted with Mlle. Wagner. I received a letter from her on the
18th August,lBsl. In consequence of that letter I went to her,
and arranged that through me she should endeavour to procure
an engagement in London and Paris. I then communicated
with Mr. Lumley, and arranged that an engagement should be
proposed to her. She was then at Berlin. I proceeded there,
taking with me the contract. 1 reached Berlin in November,
185!. They objected to the contract as being too complicated,
and I proposed that M. Wagner should himself draw out a con-
tract. He did so, and he and his daughter signed it. I brought
that contract to Mr. Lumley in Paris ; lie observed there was a
stipulation omitted as to her perforu3ing for him exclusively, anti
I added it, and signed it on behalf of Mlle. Wagner, according to
our understanding, and I wrote to her and stated that I had put
in this additional clause, and I also sent the contract, so com-
pleted, ta her I received a letter from her in answer. It stated
that she had been astounding the people at Leipsic, and that
many fainted when they beard Borneo was only to be performed
once. I no.ified to Mr. Lumley the approval of the contract. On
the 10th March I wrote to Mlle. Wagner. I had at that time 4001.
in my hands belongin to evidence Lumley. (The letter was not pro-
duced, and secondary of its contents war not allowed
to be given).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his instructions were that no
such letter was sent, or at all events received.
Dr. Becher continued: I went to Hamburg and met Mlle.
Wegner there, and conferred with her upon the subject of the
letter. I did not hear from her that she had not received it. I
arrived at Hamburg on the loth of April. She said she had com-
mitted a very bad action against me; she had signed another en-
gagement. I said, "That's impossible." She said, "As I signed it
my band trembled, but Mr. Gye has been here, and said that Mr.
Lumley would not open the house, and he offered me 20,0001.
more than Mr. Lumley, and gave me a guarantee for id' the da-
mages, and he was in such a hurry that we bad not time to think
upon the thing. and you had not sent the 3001., so we signed it."
I took the 3001. with me to Hamburg, and I tendered it to Mlle.
Wagner.

177

Cross-examined: I gain my livelihood by my profession. I
am not an advocate. 1 ant happy enough to have some fortune. I
do not negotiate between managers of theatres and artistes. I
do not get commission for it. I was not to have commission
upon this engagement. 1 was not to have any money at all. I
heard Mlle. Wagner iu July, letiO. I sew MI. Lumley soon af-
terwards, and recommended her very much to him. Mr. Lum-
ley told me to use my best endeavours to secure her for him.
don't know that I told her it was better to come tint et Mr. Lum-
ley's, as Mr. (lye's was a second-rate theatre. I told her that her
Majesty's Theatre had the prestige. I don't remember telling her
that the press was all iu favour of Mr. Lumley, and would write
tier up if she came out under him, and write her down if she was
at Mr. Oye's. 1 used toy best endeavours with her for Mr. Lum-
ley. M. Wagner said Mr. Gye had uttered her more money. I
said she should not lose by going to Mr. Lumley, and she signed
the contract. I did not produce the 3001. to Mlle. Wagner, but I
had it at my hotel. It was 1u gold. I have not said that Mr.
Lumley's bill for this money was dishonoured. It was Baths-
child's bill, and therefore that is impossible. I have received
money front Mr. Lumley ou toy own account fur expenses. It
may be 4001. That was for more than four years. I was potful-
gaged by him, but 1 undertook to get him some singers. I said I
had a tenor m each pocket That is not my constant occupation.
Managers have begged me to interest myself for them.
Re-examined : 1 had no interest hi advising Mile. Wagner to
accept the engagement fur her Majesty's '1 heatre, but It was for
her own beuetit.

The fact that Mlle. Wagner never appeared at her
Majesty's Theatre according to contract was taken
for granted by both sides, and shown, moreover,
abundantly in the testimony adduced. And that
Mr. Gye had been the immediate cause of her non-
appearance was shown upon the evidence of various
interviews and letters, in which the proprietor of the
Italian Opera-house, Covent-garden, sought and at
length obtained a contract from the lady to sing at
his own house. The contract was completed on the
sth and oth of April, 1852, and formed the turning-
point of the whole action. Under the previous en-
gagement with Mr. Lumley, Mlle. Wagner had agreed
to be in England by March 31st, while the plaintiff
on his side covenanted to pay her an advance of 300/.
a fortnight previous to her arrival. This money
should consequently have been so paid by Slash
10th, but Mlle. Wagner previously applied for a tort-
night's delay in her journey to London, to which Mr.
Lumley consented, and this application, it was ar-
gued, operated as an inferential waiver, on the part
of Mlle. Wagner, of her claim to the advance, or, at
all events, warranted a corresponding change in the lay
of payment. It appeared, however, that on April sth,
some days after the extended term for paying the ad-
vance had expired, there were no signs of the money
being forthcoming. The letter which Dr. Bacher
said he transmitted, proffering payment, was said
never to have been received by the Wagners, and
evidence adduced to show that the witness could not
have written such a letter for some time after the
new contract with Mr. Gye was signed. To prove
the extent of damage and loss accruing to the plain
tiff through the failure of Mlle. Wagner's engage
ment, the evidence taken was most voluminous. We
give a few of the details spoken to by successive
witnesses :
John Mitchell: I am a librarian in Bond-street, and lessee of
the St. James's Theatre, and have taken boxes and stalls at the
Opera-house. In February, 1852, I was In Paris, and saw Mr.
Lumley there. He informed me of the engagement of Miss
Wagner, and showed me the contract; in consequence of which
I entered into an arrangement for boxes and stalls fur that year
to the amount of 15,4001.; it was three times as much as the
preceding year. I made known to nay connection the fact of the
engagement with Miss Wagner. I relet boxes and stalls. On
the iltith of March Mr. Lutuley's programme appeared, with the
list of artistes engaged in it. Miss Wagner was announced.
Applications were extensively made for boxes. Early in April
the appearance of Miss Wagner was announced by Mr. Gye. It
created great astonishment amongst the frequenters of the opera,
and many parties gave up their negotiations for boxes, and other
partiea who had taken them gave them up. I had sixty boxes in
my contract; I could only let live altogether after this; all the
others were unlet during the season. I had taken them for sixty
nights, and put an end to them on the forty-seventh night. I had
paid Mr. Lumley on making the contract 7,0001. and 5,0001. Mr.
Lumley gave up the rest, being 4,8001. The non-appearance of
Miss Wagner was very calamitous; there was no dewand for
places. I lost more than 5,0001. by my contract. I let boxes
nightly averaging 1,5001. a season. Iu 1852 it did nut amount
to 201. for the whole season. For the same cause 1 war also a
subscriber to Gye's iu 3,4001. for that season. I remember the
night when Miss Wagner was announced to appear on the 24th
of April at Covent Garden ; the deu.aud from me fur boxes for
that night was more than I could meet. 1 made application at
(lye's office, but tumid all let. That night nay lettings at Lum-
ley's were not 301., while those at Covent Garden were 2001.
Jonathan Wage: I am an agent for letting opera-boxes. I
remember the announcement of the intended appearance of Mlle.
Wagner at the plaintiffs theatre. The expectation excited was
very gi eat—as great as the Jenny Liud fever. It was as strong
as it could be. 1 took boxes for 1852. I remember the announce-
ment of Mlle. Wagner's intended appearance at Covent Garden.
It had the effect of suspending my arrangements entirely. I
should have received my subscriptions if she bad appeared at the
plaintiff theatre. I did comparatively nothing Oher she gave
up her engagement there. It was very disastrous indeed. I had
only five boxes. My ielbscriptions for seven years averaged
3,0001. a year. I mean by this, my dealings with Mr.
The total amount for 1552 was 4841. lls. Od.
John Rush : I have the management of the business of Mr.
Copeley, in Bond-street. Our contract for 1852 was 1,1521.
Previously to that year our extra nightly takings averaged 4001.
to 5001. a year. The nightly takings for 1852 were nothing at all.
In 1852 we only let one box for the season. Three remained
unlet.
Cross-examined: It was not a very good company that season .
It was not very bad. Cruvelll wan there. She is a star of the
second magnitude. It was a very bad ballet that year. Covent
Garden introduced the pure opera without ballet.
Charles Nugent: I was the director of the box-office at the
plaintiff's theatre. In 1847 Jenny Lind performed thirty-nine
nights; the receipts for those nights were 45,9441. Tha season
of 1852 began April 1, and comprised fifty-six nights ; the total
receipts were 2,800!. 12s. I recollect Madame Sontag appearing
in 1849, 1850, and 1851. She was paid from 18,0001. to 20,0001.
during those three years. In 1840 she was only there part of

178

the season. I remember the announcement of Wagner. There
was a very great ham est excited. When she was announced for
Covent Garden all applications were suspended. There is a
great expense inenrred in getting up an opera.
Cross-examined : We had the beat company that could be got.
I cannot say I have not known a worse cowpony. I do not know
the terms of Soutag's engagement. On Jenny Linil's nights the
stalls let for three guineas a night. The pr.ce was never so
great on any other occasion. The plaintiff had ninety boxes left
upon his hands iu 1852. They did not lot at all. They were on
the upper tiers, and never let except upon very full nights. In
1852 lie had seven boxes on the grand tier. In 1847 he had
twelve on that tier. From 1847 to 1854 be had been disposing of
boxes as property boxes in perpetuity, and he had lower in 1852
than he bad in 1847. There are forty-three boxes on the grand
tier; thitty-six of those were out of his holding. On the pit
tier there arc forty-two boxes, and in 182 lie had eight of those.
On bad nights the booksellers undersell us--gentlemen dispose
of their boxes. On great nights the parties are always there
themselves.
Re-examined : We had first-rate artistes in 1852. There was
. .

a company to support Wagner had she come. The town gets
tired of ~eeing the same face 1, and novelty must be procured at
any expense.
John Alleroft : I sin a musket publisher. I have dealt with
the theatre for twelve years. I have taken boxes to the average
of 5,0001. a year at the plaintiff's theatre. 1 was about to renew
my contract in 1852, but the extent was 1521., in consequence of
Wagner not coming. lied she come I should have subscribed
largely. I never knew so bit a season as 1852.
Cross-examined : The company was weak, but the star was
not there. I merely had nightly lettings in 1852. 1 never heard
her sing.
Re-examined : The company would have been very brilliant
had Wagner come. The taking away the star prevents the per-
formance of certain operas.

Somo witnesses were called to prove the amount of
outlay incurred by the plaintiff on the faith of Mlle.
Wagner's appearance :

Henry Mepleson, librarian and transcriber at the plaintiff's
theatre,receive.l instructions to prepare the music in the Prophite
and the Huguenots, and put it in hand. The expense of the two
was 2501. The choruses were in rehearsal for live or six weeks.
The pieces were never produced.
Adolphe Gents, chorus-master of the plaintiff's theatre, re-
ceived instructions to rehearse the music in the Peophite, the
Hugisersote, and the Capeletti. The chorus was composed of sixty
performers.
Grace Bradney, superintendent of the wardrobe at the plain-
tiff's theatre, had orders to prepare dresses for those three
operas. I employed forty hands in preparing the dresses. The
expense was very great, 2001. or 3001.
Cross-examined: The dresses remained. One part was used
for other operas. Thoy were all entirely new.
The defendant's case rested chiefly upon allega-
tions setting forth that he had been in treaty with
Mlle. Wagner before Mr. Lumley ever communi-
cated with her ; that he abstained from all inter-
ference as soon as he learnt that the plaintiff had
inducal her to take an engagement, and only re
newed the treaty when he found the opening of her
Majesty's Theatre delayed and doubtful; and that
before he concluded the engagement with Mlle.
Wagner she assured him that the contract with Mr.
Lumley was void, and showed him the clause
enjoining payment of the WM. advance on a day
named, the breach of which he was told had annulled
the whole agreement. Mr. Gye, who appeored as a
witness, was examined at great length upon these
points. After detailing the progress of sundry
earlier and abortive treaties with the Wagners, he
gave the following account of the interview at which
the contract was finally concluded
Never attempted to induce Mlle. Wagner to break her engage-
ment with Mr. Lumley. Knew simply that her engagement was
for three months. No communication took place between them
Lam October, Dill, until the month of March following. Heard
then that Mr. Lumley was in difficulties. Wrote to her on the
oth of March. Asked her if she could give a few performances
at Covent Garden after her engagement at the other theatre, but
got no answer. Went to Berlin, but did not find Mlle. Wagner,
and then proceeded to Hamburg. Arrived in Hamburg on the
rah of April. Saw her and her father. Thought the first ques-
tion he asked was, why they had not written to him. Mlle. Wag-
ner said, in French, that she was free. Inquired into particu-
lars, and she told him that, according to the contract entered Into
with Mr. Lumley, he was bound to pay her 3001. on the 15th of
March. She said she was then free to make an engagement
with hint. In the course of the interview saw the copy of her
agreement with Lumley. Offered an engagement, and she asked
the terms. He offered her 2,0001. for two months, end a month's
salary in advance. There was some conversatlon amongst the
friends there, and it resulted In their agreeing, and his taking a
sheet of paper to write the engagement. It was dated the sth,
mid a receipt for 1,0001. was also dated on the sth. Thought that,
when making an engagement on the ground that the previous
contract was broken, he should satisfy himself of the fact that
there was such a provision, and accordingly asked them to show
hint Mr. Lumley a contract. Saw part of the controot turned
down ; they showed him the clause which was to the effect that
Mr. Lumley was to pay the 3001. by the 15th of March. Bead
that "Wise, but did not read any more of the contract but that
particular clause. It was stated to him that the contract was
broken, or that Mr. Lumley had broken his contract, in conse-
quence of the nonpayment of the 3001. The Wagners asked if
he had any objection to give them what meant in English an in-
demnity, and he said, "Not the least." On the indemnity and
cheque being given, and the contract signed, he left Hamburg.
Mlle. Wagner asked him If lie could not wait a day or two longer,
in case Lumley should send the money. Witness said he could
nut; that lie had done that which lie hail never done before, and
that was to leave the theatre during the season, and that had al-
ready lost more time than lie had expected to do on starting.
No person informed him there had been any extension of time
teethe commencemont of Mlle. Wagner's engagement. Did not
hear of any extension of time for the payment of money, nor any-
thing about r letter (coin Hitcher that he had got the money. Did
nut hear of it until the Chancery proceedings.
Some legal evidence touching the subsequent pro-
ceedings in Chancery, by which an injunction was
obtained prohibiting Mlle. Wagner front performing
at any theatre except by the plaintiff's consent, and
to the abortive attempts to obtain that lady's own evi-
dence by a commission issued to take the examina-
tion in Berlin, having been adduced, Sir F. Thesiger
replied on behalf of the plaintiff; and Lord Camp•
bell, summing up, left it with the jury to decide

THE PRESS.

upon three several "counts." Retiring at four o'clock
on the third day of trial (Wednesday), they returned
at half past five with the following verdict:—

Upon the question, whether the agreement between plaintiff
and Mlle. Wagner remained in force on the bth of April, when
the agreement was signed between her and the defendant, they
found for the plaintiff iu the affirmative. Upon the second
question, whether defendant induced Mile. Wagner to break her
agreement with the plaintiff the jury also found for the plaintiff
in the affirmative. Upon the third question, whether the defend•
ant knew that the agreement between the plaintiff and Mlle.
Wagner remained a binding agreement when he entered into an
agreemegt with her on the tith April, they found in the negative
fur the defendant.

This finding was equivalent to a general verdict
for the defendant.

A LARGE SEIZURE OF GUNPOWDER to the amount of
1,2001b5. was effected on Saturday by the police, who
had traced the article from Messrs. Pigon's gunpowder-
works to the premises of a Mr. Clemmitt, the railway-
canier, in the Old Bailey. The powder was made
up in separate parcels, and addressed to different
parties in the country, and Mr. Clemmitt explained
that they were only retained on his premises until
the pressure of business allowed him to forward
them to their destination. The aggregate quantity
being, however, much above that allowed by the law
to be kept in any house in the City, the powder was
seized, and the proprieter summoned to give ex-
planation at the Guildhall. On Tuesday the charge
was accordingly investigated, and it was pleaded for
Mr. Clemmitt that the powder had been in his
keeping more in transitu for conveyance into the
country. This plea was admitted in respect of ten
casks, but disallowed as to nine, which it was shown
had remained for three weeks on his premises.
These casks, therefore, were forfeited, and the
penalty of 2s. per lb., making about 011., inflicted by
way of fine. Mr. Clemmitt gave notice of appeal.

. gittibtuts anb Offouts.

AN EXTENSIVE CONFLAGRATION broke out on Sun-
day morning on the farm premi,es of Mr. Scovell, of
Bishopstoke, near Southampton, and in the space of
a short time spread with inconceivable rapidity, de-
stroying the farmhouse, three cottages, the out-
buildings, barns, and several corn and hay stacks.
Some pigs and a quantity of poultry also fell a prey
to the flames. Luckily the owner is fully insured.
A MOST DARING ROBBERY was committed on Tues-
day upon the person of a gentleman in the City,
from whom Bank of England notes, &c., to the
amount of upwards Gf 4001. were stolen. He took
his seat in a City omnibus, and the only person who
sat near him was a yoing man who got out in Cheap-
side. On alighting at his destination the gentleman
discovered that he had been robbed of a pocket-book
containing 2001. in motes, a bill of exchange for
s2l. 10s., and a cheque for 801. A reward of 1001.
has been offered for the apprehension of the thief,
A FEARFUL COLIIERY EXPLOSION resulting in the
sacrifice of more than a hundred lives occurred at
Wigan on Saturday afternoon. The catastrophe
happened in the Arley Mine, belonging to the Ince-
hall Coal and Cannel Company, and was only eleven
months ago the scene of a similar accident, in which
fifty-eight persons perished. All that is known of
the present tragedy is, that at three p.m. on the day
named the workmen engaged round the mouth of
the pit became aware that the firedamp had ex-
ploded in the galleries beneath. Fortunately the
guiding-rods and winding apparatus were uninjured
by the blast, and the winding of the "cage " was at
once commenced. The sulphurous air which in-
variably follows an explosion of firedamp, and the
mass of materials loosened by the blast lying about,
for some time pre-ented the men who descended
from penetrating far in the workings in search of the
living and dead. At length fourteen persons were
wound up alive, but in a faint and pitiable state.
They had remained together in an airway for several
hours until the atmosphere became less suffocating.
These are all that were rescued out of about 130
who were at work in the shaftings at the time.
THE BARQUE Countess of Derby was wrecked in
Moreton-bay on the 31st of October last. The cap-
tain, crew, and passengers were all safely landed at
Brixham by the Raven.

A FLAX-MILL, in the occupation of Mr. Wilson, in
Water-lane, Leeds, was completely destroyed by fire
on Tuesday night. The loss will be considerable, as
both building and contents were entirely consumed.

A NEW SAFETY MINING-LAMP has been invented by M.
de St. Simon Sicard, and patented both in England and
France. It is an adaptation of the hydro-oxygen lime
light, and, unlike the " Davy " lamp, is hermetically sealed
when placed in the hands of the miners, through whose
want of care in opening the lamps to get a better light the
greater part of these shocking occurrences may be attri-
buted. By a supplemental apparatus, this lamp can be
made to light the whole of the galleries of a mine, thus
placing the means whereby these accidents take place
entirely out of the reach of the unskilled pitman.)

SATURDAY,

IRON AND WOOD.

THE recent disastrous wrecks of iron-built ships have
given new stimulus to a controversy which has been
long pending respecting the comparative advantages
of iron and of wood as a material for shipbuilding.
To this subject the Times had devoted more than one
leading article, and after alluding to the loss of the
Tayleur, which after striking " went down like a
cannon-ball," drew a further illustration from the
fate of the Birkenhead troop ship, which " broke her
back on a reef as you might break a stick across
your knee," and then went down in two parts, stein
and stern. Both of these vessels, adds the Times,
were iron-built, and the question is then appended
whether similar results would have followed if they
had been constructed of wood. To this question a
negative answer is evidently inferred ; but Mr.
Lindsay, the eminent shipowner, gives from his own
extensive experience a correction of this erroneous
conclusion. He states, in a letter addressed to our
contemporary :
" Had both these vessels been built of wood the result
would, no doubt, have been the same. The former (the
Tayleur) during a severe gale was dashed with great vio-
lence against a precipitous rock, on which it would appear
one bilge hung, while under the other bilge there
were some seven fathoms water. The latter, going at
the rate of eight or nine knots per hour, struck in midships
on the sharp point of a rock, with deep water below either
extremity and all round. Neither wood nor iron, nor any
other material, could resist for even five minutes shocks so
extraordinary and so appalling as these. At the very mo-
ment they struck their bottoms must have been rent open
and, had they been constructed of wood, the holes would
have been unquestionably larger, as the force of the blows
would have shattered the ',hulking and timbers for many
feet on either side of the particular spot that first struck
the rock; whereas, if the bottoms of the Tayleur and the
Birkenhead could nowbe inspected, it would be found that
even the plates adjoining those which struck the rocks
were perfectly sound. This has been clearly illustrated in
the case of the iron steam-ship Great Britain. That vessel
lay on the open coast of Ireland a whole winter, exposed to
every gale, and, when at last she was removed from that
dangerous strand, her bottom was quite sound, with the
exception of the particular parts where she had bumped or
grounded upon the rocks. But how very different were
the results in the case of the wooden steam-ship Demerara.
I believe no stronger vessel was ever built of wood than
that steam-ship ; yet after getting on shore in ballast trim
on the bank—an uneven and rocky bank, it is true—of the
river Avon, where no sea or gale could injure her, every
plank and timber were so shattered by her own weight that
she was condemned as a total wreck. On the other hand,
and in the case of fire, had the steamship Amazon been
built of iron instead of wood, the annals of the sea would
not have recorded so dreadful a tragedy.
" I have for many years directed particular attention to
this subject, and there is no question on my own mind
that in the very essential points of strength and safety, as
w ell as speed, capacity, and durability, iron is greatly su-
perior to wood in the construction of merchant vessels.
It has long been a plausible and popular error that if two
ships, one of iron, the other of wood, with the same de-
scriptions of cargo on board, were both scuttled, the latter
would remain above the water longer than the former.
We all know that wood will swim, but the thing is absurd
to imagine that iron can swim.' This has been a very
common expression, and has almost invariably been an-
swered by the very striking and pointed retort—' Try
them.' I'eople knew it was useless to try, for they knew
that a piece of wood did swim, and that a piece of iron
sank. But a fact now as well established appears by many
to be quite overlooked, that iron, in the shape of a ship,
floats more buoyantly than wood in the same shape, and
of the same dimensions."

Mr. Lindsay adds, in reference to some suggested
improvements in the art and practice of navigation :
" I have often thought it strange that, in the present
advanced state of science, the mode of shortening sail
should remain much the same as it was a hundred years
ago. There have been many patents, but nearly ell have
proved of little practical value. Mr. Cunningham had the
courtesy to send me, some few days since, full particulars
of his ' contrivance, whereby topsails are reefed and un-
reefed from the deck in a few minutes without the necessity
of sending a man aloft.' It appears to me very ingenious
and very simple, and I intend to embrace the first spare
opportunity of seeing it practically tested. When I have
done so "I may venture to give my opinion of the results.

" The suggestion that sailing-ships should be towed out
by steam tugs into the Atlantic would certainly tend to
lessen the danger; but during heavy gales of wind, and with
a high sea running, when the danger is most imminent,
especially when approaching a lee shore, a steam-tug could
prove of very little service, and would in many cases be a
cumbrance. Besides, it would so greatly enhance the
current expenses of voyage that the rates of freight and
passage money would be thereby increased. However, for my
own part I would gladly pay a steamer to accompany any
of my ships to sea if the shippers and passengers by her
would pay a rate in proportion higher than they paid to
those vesselswhich clid not accept the services of a steam.
tug."