The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAT.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Mingo at Nisi Prius—(Before Mr. Justice Hill and Common
Juries)
_ . ZDWAEDIS r. mivT—NEWSPAPER ENGAGEMENT&

This was an action for the wrongful dismissal of tho
plaintiff as musical critic of the Daily Telegraph, of which
the defindaut is the proprietor. The defendant pleaded
not guilty and a justification.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Matthews were counsel for the
plaintiff. Mr. Edwin Jamisi and Mr. Mundell represented
the defendant.

The plaintiff had been engaged under a written contract
on the 17th March last for a year as the musical critic of the
Daily Telegraph at a salary of 31. Is. per week. The de-
fendant wished him to call at the office daily for instructions
but it was arranged that the plaintiff should not do so be-
cause it would have interfered with his other duties, and
also because such • course was unusual in his profession. It
was arranged that on Easter Monday last the plaintiff
should attend Drury-lane Opera. He had been in the
country and arrived at the office of the paper
about a quarter to eight o'clock. He saw the defendant in
his room in the presence of three of the editorial staff, and
apologised for being late in consequence of having misses"
the train. The defendant said, " You will not be in time
to abuse the performances," and witness asked for an ex.
planation, and added that he was in the habit
of writing the truth about performances, whereas
the defendant was only influenced by advertisements.
' The defendant ordered him to leave the room, when plaintiff
said he would do so when he had said all he had to say,
and that he was ready to notice the perfotmance. The
defendant again desired him to leave the room, which he
did. He had afterwards written to the defendant that he
was prepared to perform his contract, but be refused to
make any sinology as asked, because he did not think he had
done anything to demand it.
In his cross-examination the plaintiff said that almost
every time he saw Mr. Levy, the latter used to say that he
wished he could call oftener at the office„ for although the
Telegraph was very little to witness, it was everything to
him. On the occasion to which he referred, the opera was
announced (or half-past 7, but did not in reality commence
until 8. Mr. Levy said to him—" You wont' have time
to abase the opera," speaking ironically, as witness under.
stood, in reference to a critique which he had written,
abusing • concert, and which bad been suppressed.
Witness asked the defendant to explain what he meant.
when he replied " You know as well as I do." Witness
afterwards said to the defendant that he abused the theatre
in a shameful manner because they would not advertise, and
immediately he got the advertisements he praised. Covent.
garden did not advertise now, but the prospectua under Dr.
Pech's management was advertised. Mr. Levy did not say
to him in a very polite manner that he had better leave the
room and call again to-morrow. He was most offensive in
his manner. He said " 1 wish to have nothing more to say
to you," and witness replied it would be no great loss.
He-examined—Witness had Dever received a hint from
any other newspaper for which he wrote, nor had any din
agreement with the management. Witness told Mr. Levy
that he (witness) based his obseratioas on the merits of the
opera, but that Mr. Levy's opinions were guided by adver.
tisementa. The concert which witness hadabused had been
largely advertised in the Telegraph. It was a very lad
concert.

Two letters from the plaintiff to the defendant were them
put in ; they were to the effect that the plaintiff was pre-
pared to fulfil his part of the engagement, The defendant
111 his reply stated that his deciaiou dismissing the plaintiff
was final and referring him for any further communicatioes
to his solicitors. . . . .

The defence was, that the defendant had put an end to
the contract by neglect of his duties ; and secondly, by
insolence and insubordination, which, if submitted to,
would have prevented Mr. Levy from maintaining
his position as proprietor of the paper with
any effect. The defendant deposed that on the
evening in question the plaintiff mine to the office about
o'clock, muffled up to the chin, with a cloak on and a carpet
bag in his hand, which was an unusual style of costume foe
the opera. He told the plaintiff that he did not think it
would be of any use his going to the opera at that hour
' when the plaintiff replied he had many times heard the
I opera, and could therefore write on it. Witness said it was
the first night of anew orchestra, and that the plaintiff could
not fairly criticise theperforinances without hearing theover.
ture,howeverbadthe execution might be. The plaintiff then
in an insolent tone said that he was not like the defendant in
the habit of praising the performances because they gave
him advertisements. The defendant asked the plaintiff how
he dared to make such an assertion, as he was the last man
against whom such an allegation could be made, when the
plaintiff replied that the defendant knew he was in the
habit of doing it with reference to Mr. Gye, on which he
the requestedthe plaintiff to leave the room and to
following day. The plaintiff then opened
the door, and said that if the defendant wanted
him to do anything he would know where to
find him, and he muttered in an undertone " that it did
not much matter and he did not care much about it." The
plaintiff's manner was most offensive and insolent. In
consequence of the plaintiff's absence them was no critique
of the Drury-lane performances of that or tin subsequent
night in the Dail TelegrtipA. On the following day,
expecting to hear from the plaintiff, he remained at the
office till 2 o'clock in the day, and returned at 7 in the
evening, when he received a note from the plaintiff re-
questing to be informed by bearer what he was to do, but
there was no one waiting to receive an answer.
The defendant, in his cross-examination, denied positively
that he was influenced in his critiques by advertisements.
He was only antagonistic to Covent-garden on the question
whether it was possible to have two good opera houses at
the same time in London, and not to Mr. Gye personally.
Further evidence having been adduced in support of the
defendant's case,
Mr. Justice Hill said that the plea of justification could
not be wholly entertained. Occasional neglect would not
justify a discharge without notice, although habitual neg-
lect would. There was no evidence of the latter. One act
of insubordination, which would justify the dismissal of a
person in the position of the plaintiff, must be incompatible
with that position. He would, however, if the learned
counsel wished, amend the
_plea.
The plea was then amended.
The learned counsel on both sides having addressed the
julais Lordship summed up, and
The jury found, in answer to questions put to
them by the learned judge, that the plaintiff was
ready and willing to perform his contract, that
he was not guilty of insolent or insubordinate conduct, and
that his contract bad not been rescinded by mutual consent.
They returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 401.

THE POLICE COURTS.

(THIS DAY.)

MANSION.HOUSE.
AN ISWUDILNT THIET.
John Banks, a lacy-looking young fellow, was charged
1 with attempting to pick the pocket of a gentleman, un-
known, in Uracechurch-street.
Police-constable 57e, said he was in Gracechurch-street,
yesterday afternoon, when he saw the prisoner and another
young fellow lurking about the omnibus stand, and as he
ew them both to be suspicious characters, he made
towards them ; but the prisoner happening just then to turn
round, saw witness, and with his companion directly walked
away, and witness lost sight of them. Soon after, how.
ever, he again saw them near the same spot, following an
elderly lady and gentleman, the latter of whom appeared to
be nearly blind, and a minute or two later the prisoner went
dose to the gentleman, lifted his omit tail with one hand
and felt his pocket with the other, but whether he got any-
thing out or not witness could not my, since the pi isoaer and
his companion both caught sight of him at the same moment,
and rap off as fast as they could. In following them he
lost Night of the gentleman, and was some tune before
he could secure the prisoner, when he overtook him, and in
the end, owing to his violence, was compelled to get the
assistance of a brother officer, to convey him to the station,
his companion getting safely away.
Mr. Alderman Hale—Will, prisoner, what have you to
iI say to this ?
Prisoner—Why, if you please, my lord, it's a big a lie u
ever was told. (Laughter.) There ant a word of truth in
what the fellow says.
Mr. Alderman Hale—l'm afraid I must believe him in
preference to you.
Prisoner—Oh! of course you will; hut still it's all lies.
I was not along with no other young feller ; and I wasn't
near the gentleman at all.
Mr. Alderman Hale—Then what made you run away?
Prisoner--Why he did, fur as soon as I was a standing
quietly doing of oothink, lie comes up behind, and gives me
a kick that sent ine about three yards. So I looks round,
and sees who it is, and off I goes for fear I should get ano-
ther. (Roars of laughter.)
Mr. !sideman Hale sent him to prison and bard labour
for fourteen days.

WORSHIP-STREET.
WOMAN.I4 PORBRAKANCY-
Robert Brown, a thick-set labouring MAU, was charged be.
fore Mr. D'Eyncourt with assaulting Hannah, his wife.
The complainant, a pretty-featured young woman, got
into the witness-box with an infant in her arms,
and j said,—l don't want to mend him to priaan,
but can't live upon the trine he sometimes
gives me. Last night he came home, and when
I told him that three shillings in a fortnight would nut
support us, he struck me in the bosom, turned me out of
doors with the baby, anal would not let me in, so I was
compelled to give him into custody ; but now I don't want
bins to gp to prison.
Mr. D'Eyncourt —So you lava told me. Has he ill-used
you before?
Complainant—Oh, yes ; he has beaten me with a strap
nail I have been scored like pork.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—What was that for?
Complainant—One night lie brought a strange drunken
man home, who afterwards fell down and cut his face. MI
husband wanted me to get up from my bed and wash the
tipsy man's face, and when I refused he beat me as I
have described.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—Why did you not bring him here for
that!

Complainant— looked over it-- I dip sot wish to send
him to prison, LW don't sow.
Mr. D'Evncourt - -And when did he neat ill.use you!
Complainant -When I came out of my confisement only
three weeks, he beat me black and blue ; but I don't wish
hum to go to prison. My parents supported me end my
two chillers for three days.
Defendant denied the charge, refusedtogive his wife even
sixpence out of lie. towel on him, and threatened to break
up the '• house."
Mr. Irlivitcoert ordered him to find a good surety to
keep the peace tot six months.