The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S

limixes Ix Um) a van 14it. Oast —barons ILL Janus
ema.n...e. Ys. J,. nu isurows. Ma. Jun..= Eau. ass Ma.
Summit ncorriar.

LtgLll V. Ova.—Tau RIVAL 01%1A ROMS.
This ease come before the court apes a desanner as the
pined,'. declared*, the nand* for the gensidesaVes of
the evert b.rr'aagg, whether an anise weld be maistniaed
wid. tat the deteadaat for having " *deed sad peseered"
Mane. Johan* Waver to break the oentenet the had made
with the plaintiff. The case occupied the smart a past of
yesteeday and to-day. It appeared that the pWllt. who
was the proprietor el her Mejesty's Theatre, Immegitt as
maim against the defeadaat, the propitiator of Covent-
defendant
*etre, to recover damages is seasevience of the
having maliciously *Aimed and peesseed Mdlle.
Johanna Wagner to violate an she bed *tired
tots with the punatiff, whereby be had subbed Sgllaenatt pe-
cuniary 10•11. There were three Sena* la the .
First, tint the plaintiff WM the preprieller and inammeger of
Her 3lviesty's Theatre, fur the peribemesee therein
of per,iis skilled in Waging, to his great gain
cad prAit, to be derived from mow reirrivei fee
mete and *an is the theatre At the wpm of h=f
the perlormance; that the pleisdif sesarethel Obi
With Johanna Wagner, she bag • Wad is dog-
leg, aad that she bad agreed to in given open&
ea serta:u term. see of which was that she woo set to sag
or sae her talents, came is Her Ilrissere Theatre, with-
out the wrings anthenty of the plainiff; thet the defen-
that wrongfully sad maliciously endeavoured to Libre the
pitieOff la his management and to prevent the said Jo-
hanna Wagner from performing the contract, and deprived
the plaintiff of the puts and profits he would otherwise
have derived Inin her performs**, and whilst the sires.
mast ern in force maliciously astd +naughtily induced and
procured the said Johan* Wagner to make default
ia singing and performieg without the written autho-
wity of the plaintiff, and that she accordingly re-
bind to fulfilthe agreeanat, whereby theplaintiff
sustained great pecuniary loss, and was pat to
great expense. By the mooed count it was alleged that the
plaiatiff bad taken proceedings in the Court of Chancery to
restrain the said Johanna Wagner from singing at Cowan-
garden Opera House, which proceedings were decided in
his favour. The inkasetios was then eat snit. Spatial da-
mage we: alleged. The third tout alleged that Jame*
Wapner had bees hired by the plaintiff as a dramatic
artist*. and that the &hada* had induced and preened her
lo break her contra*. To theme counts the defendant de-
murred.
lir. Wilke, assisted by Mr. Crean', argued in support of
the demurrer. This was an action for breach of contrast.
la all cases of breach of contract, relating to a bargain be-
tween the parties a, the call remedy was apical the penes
who broke the contract. The defendant in this *ties was
set ehargud with any breach of contract, but It was
that be was liable for another party burlap alleged
broken
her tontrset. There was one ease—that of amine-
dm—where a third party might sae hr a remedy ;
bat, in all cases el contract, Chaperon' who had broken
the contrast was the 'sly panes liable teas *toe. There
was se peoesient the sash as Mies* the present. If •
mew bees& is mass he ea Willey dear to his servant,
there must beef actual servos IA order to =Mtn&
the action ; an action relating to seduction, the
action was for loss of service ; but in oases of seduction,
when the maintenance albs seduced daughter was thrown
by the Poor-law epos the father, that was ruled to be too
remote upon which ma action teak be malatained.
Mr. Justice Coleridge mid, supposiag a masa had made a
matmet to serve meths, to a certain day, bat, before the
lime bad expired, seethes person *dated Ida to leave and
p. to America, would an action lie minimal the person who
had induced the other to break the costract ?
Mr. Willis considered such an Mies world not lie.
Than was no relation of master and sena*. There were
several cases which west to show that, In the present in-
'stance, there was not each a relation as that of master and
wee* between the *tett and Johanna Wagner. In
the ease of " Hart .. Aldridge" the anise was brought
for indulegjetheepems sheemaken to leave Hart's work.
Ltd Massie' thelithd that that did not cosstitate the
reledes of macaw sad servant It minty could not be said
that Mesas Weiser was the serest* of the plaintiff.
There wee the ease of "Taylor r. Wait" where the action
was area& pima • peen who had beaten Breda, a
=whereby he wee nallered bearable of singing.
Justice gyre had had that fist anion wee not main-
Unable. In' r. Harrimes" the plaiadff bad
brought an Mies the defendant for having pnb-
a=24.l
lathed • libel Mame Mars, in consequence of
which libel M Mara had refused say lows to per-
form. Lord Keay* said the *lies was unprecedented.
' If • man married an seeress, sad /revealed her resenaing
ent the stage, mead as anion be maintained ?
Mr. Justice Calends, said there seemed to be a question
as to the mesaing el the words enticing and procuring.
- Supposing she Ited-been takes by force to AusnaW sad the
esstract had bees broken ?
Mr. Willes said that where force had been used an action
might perhaps be maintansed but that ease was very
different to the present. The tumedy was against the per-
ms betaking the contract : bat a pen= advising another
sr innocently persuading seethes to break a contract, was
set liable to an &sties ; a penes might consider it a duty
as give such advice. By the dad count it was alleged
that Johan* Wagner was a dramatic artiste. That did
set imply any Matisse( master and servant. He submit-
ted the defends* had dose no wring-tut act, and was not
liable to this *ties.
Mr. Cowling appeared en behalf of the plaintiff, end con-
tended that the dells was good. There wee no actual
attinnoe betwees the three counts. The serious loss al-
p tee *law was, that the services of a person like
Weiser could not be replaced ; her
ensarwas unique ; there was no market
perfeemen, and therefore the loss was
Eseprile. Is meet cases other persons could
be resumed le 111.917 the place of the party ; and, but for
the isteriesse el OM defendant, Mdlle. Wagner would
bre pesibreed her asineet ; the defendant was the sole
ems 411 the IlleiNdeleMkrielated, and the most geneses
isle eras to re reed, the act of the defendant, a kee
which, IA row he seen to sake geed le the
petty inured. Hisia= bed paid so anspliaset le the
kw in elating thee the piisdif was wittiest • remsdy ; but
be (ple. Cowling) essessisi *et the sass fell within the
idadidt, that when lees et amigo had am reedesed by
• puma that pees she bed des the wren eat sake
red the damp te Ms and wee liars to es
assies. That hat heesPilliMwe by Chid Drew
Oemya. No dealt that gone al
role had
wire
mad qualikeadese, bet be apprehended the asset il
have as litneela Is finding that the present mesa wee
with* that yule. Mille. Wagner had entered kilo lOW
Inlet le for the plsint.ff—she broke the* eseler
ase
sad
did wrong to the plaintiff. That mew wee
eared by the wrongful and malicious inteefeeththed
lhem
the deftemiam, who was the porno who wrongfully sad
=tr=d her„ tow would be to'rcitpirtrelt.;,:d he
as
mus to an acties for so dolor, whatever might be the
seeir to the peseta] rule. No doubt the penes who
hal Mn its the Ileeerset was Millie. Wagner, but that can-
trust seer have hese performed bet for the interference
Mae delballeat Her act, therefore, was little mere than
as ea of the deasdaat. is friend m:ght as well argue
that the pes by shish a 'wrongful act was done was liable,
sled set the play by whom the pen was guided.liege itai
derrest wee WWI 'disable thaa Mille. Wagner.
/11s. Juane Osheldge—Tees errant goes to the enlist

that any am who persusdeo another to break a imatriett is
leabie to an action.
Mr. Cowling did not Mies. to go to that *skint. Hero
was a person who had led-iced Mdile. Wagner to break her
contract, and wry ehould there he no remedy at law ? The
remedy against Mdlle. Wagner might lie useless to the
plaintiff; if she was abroad the pleintiff got no recompense.
Supposing Millis. Wegner were an infant, she could not be
hued. In cases of this kind, if an action would not lie
egniast the real party who caused the mischief, the party
injured was without a remedy. The learned counsel cited
a vast number of cram to support his reismssing and con-
tended that although there was not a ass actually in point,
still by analogy the principle of those cases would govern
that now before the Mill, and which he urged was Can-
sistent with justice.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said, supposing he should retain a
great painter to do sumo work in his drawing-room, be-
tween trio lit January and the let March, and to do no
other w..rk during that time, and some other person came
to him and give him twice as much to go elsewhere, would
an action lie against the person who ceased the Other to
break his contract?
Mr. Cowling thought it would. The present case came
within the limits of the general nil*, and the court would
come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to

judgment.
Mr. Willes, in reply, raid he was at a leas to understand
his friend's difficulty, whether or not malice was requisite.
The cases did not apply if malice was necessary. it had
never been supposed with regard to the retention of
a servant that malice was necessary, but in other cues
malice we. a necessary ingredient. It was requi-
site to show that this case tell within a class of aims.
First his friend said it was within eases where malice
wall not nets.* try. if malice was not necessary a great
many of his friend's obeervatioas fell to the ground. His
ftiend was pressed with the ambiguity of his argument as
to the withdrawal oleo actress by acts lawful and unlawful,
not as regarded the law but as regarded public morals,
drawing the distinction between taking an actress for a wife
and a playas. Ile would put a case just beyond the range of
personal service. Supposing a woman agreeing to an arbi-
tration, her marrisgo would be a breach of the contract.
Would an action lie against tho husband for marrying her?
The woman Skirt could bind herself, and might have per
the agreement, but the marriage aimed a breads of
the contract. The learned counsel went at considerable
length Into the caul cited by Mr. Cowling, and contended
that they did not apply to the present ease.
Mr. Justice Coleridge intimated that the court would give
judgment on Tuesday.

COURT OF
lllmam Ar Num PIN

BLarox v.

—flaroas T Lae Qua Law ana
Cgiusom Jaws.

_
fan "nix CLus."

Mr. James and Mr. bops appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Hodges fee the defendant
This was an action to recover the sum of 301.35. 6d., for
work and labour. It appeared that in 1330 a project for
the mitabishenent of a club fur the middle classes, to be
called " The Park Club," was set on foot. It wee Intended
to open this club at Buckingham House. Pall-mall, next to
the Carlton ; and the defendant (the emaciate of the Wes-
ton Circuit), was one of a committee of gentlemen to carry
out the object A Mr. Lomax called upon the plaintiff,
who is an advertising agent in Wellington-street North, on
the subject of advertising • circular containing the names
of the committee of the club, and full details respecting the
project. That document stated that the committee had
made satisfactory arrangements with Mr. Kensington
Lewis, the owaer of Buckingham House, to purchase non
lew lee the purposes of the club ; and it set forth the names
of the defendant, Mr. Isaacson, of Norfolk-street, Mr.
Howard, • solicitor, Mr. Terrell, barrister, and other mai
demos, as members of the committee. The plaintiff sass-
quently waited on • Mr. Smythe, the secretary of the club,
who gave him orders from time to time for advertisements.
The club did not receive the amount of support which the
committee thought necessary t" ensure its success, and ulti-
mately the committee was dissolved, and the subscriptions,
summating to 1,0761. iss., were returned in full. The plain-
tire claim originally amounted to 464. 3e. 04., but 16/. was
paid on account sad be now sought to recover the balance.
The imemnittee had opened an assault at Messrs. Cocks,
Biddalph, and Co.'s,where the subscriptions were made pay-
able; but it did not appear that any of the preliminary ex-
posses were paid out of the fund so raised.
Mr. Crowder, for the defendant, contended that he was
not liable, as the club was a private speculation of Mr.
Smythe's, w'so was to have boss appointed secretary, and
the whole affair, in fact, bad been got up by him to benefit
himself and procure • mmaat Wei. Lewis.
The defendant, Mr. 'mesa, and Mr. Terrell, were
celled, and stated that was to hold them harmless,
and that they had ea Ni to enable him to defray
the expenses which he had incurred. They all admitted,
however, in cross. esamiaatiew, that they had mesa the ad-
vertisements signed by Smythe "hp wise of the ammit-
tee." Mr. Isaacson stated that he had mateastrated with
Smythe upon the impropriety of pre blhlriat their armee,
but no steps were taken to prevent suit publiestion,
or their credit being pledged as members of the mm-
mines.

The Lord Chief Baron told the jury that if they be-
Hewed the defendant had allowed bk name to appear in
advertisements, day after day, without taking any step to
prevent his credit being pledged for work done for, or
goods supplied to, the committee, that would amount to
an adoption of the acts of the secretary, and would
make the defendant liable for the amount claimed by the
plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-
SWIMS AT NMI Pam IM ILIDDLAIIIIL—Brrom
JIMA AAP a COMMA J VIT.

Cass Jun=

Hsu!Tza r.

♦ Lawns PO3

DILANDATIOXII.

The plaintiff in thise;;;;Cci as trustee for the Rue. Mr.
Tebbutt, to recover the met of repairs of 'even leasehold
houses in the neighbourhood of Brunswick-street, Hackney-
road, which the defendant had held as lessee for 21 years
from Midsummer, 1831. The plaintiff claimed 3701., the
amount which he had paid for the repairs, and the defen-
dant paid into court 1101., and pleaded that this was
enough to cover the repent for which be was liable.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Lush, and Mr. Honyman
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serialist Byks and Mr
Pearson fur the defendant.

A good deal of evidence was produced on each aide as to
the amount of repairs for which the defendant was liable,
which was the principal question in the cause. Another
point, however, was that the defendant had assigned the
property in April last to his gamekeeper, with the view of
getting rid of it, and also to get out of the liability attached
to it. Nearly the whole of the dilapidation., however,
'aided before April, 11352, and it was therefore contended
that the assignment to the gamekeeper was unimportant,
and it was further submitted that the whole afar was a
sham and of no effect.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

ADMIRALTY COURT.—SAIURDAT.
Barons Dz. Lirranierop.
The court sat for a short thew, and disposed of a few proo.
tonal suotions.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-SATuRDAT.

Burma Ka. Cu-------i ?mum.
IN TICS lain* Or DONALD •. KUM-

This insolvent, the arid pmelltesse amnia, ap-
plied under the Protection Alt, Wien Me. Ossaaner
Phillips. There was no oppeeidenM the applislitien. The
schedule exhibits debts for which esmidssatieet bad been
received to 8581., and he had 351. evils le lies The in-
solvency was attributed "to the eslablkhnent •f the
Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, as • neend Mom Owe
House, since which time he had bad no regaisr angegenent "
His income had fluctuated in the last her He had
received 6001. a year, and latterly sheet a year.
Coesaielemer Phillips inspected the esimmtele, and re-
marked that tYemendating 41 the lasehemt bad helm oss-
siderable esinpared milli lie reasiple. Be relined to
several astatine as the sehednle.
The insolvent said Ws inane bad dropped very wed-
denly. It had been Mt, and it was afterwards about
2001.; whilst Ms angemem Imonsed.
His Homier went over the several yeah, end showed the
Moons and expenses. The latter, he thought, bad been
too
Tlarge.
he insolvent said he made 6001. when be was yit Drury-
lane Theatre, sad out of the &M. a year aftewara he had
expended • good deal in travelling expenses.
It was stated to the court that the insolvent bad a family
of eight children and his mother to support, and his ex-
penses were considerable, while his income had decreased.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said that if that was the ease
he should regulate his expenditure. A man had no right
to make his creditors support his family. There was a
large sum spent in housekeeping besides other expenses.
Alter some further examination, the learned Commissioner
said the debts were 1,0201. on the schedule, and there was
not a shilling for the creditors. His Honour added—
" Well, you ars not opposed by your creditors, and I shall
not take upon myself to oppose you."
A day was named for the final order, and protection
granted.
_ -