The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-08 00:00:00

BRAIIAM V. ALMOND.

In this case, which has excited immense interest in the
theatrical and musical world, some particulars of which
have already been published, it will be recollected that
the plaintiff is Mr. Augustus Braham, the celebrated
tenor singer, and the defenda:nt Mr. George Almond,
who married Miss Romer, the actress, and lessee of the
surrey Theatre. The claim was for 501., for two weeks'
salary, and there being some difficulty in the case with
reference to the agreement between the parties, the
.decision was postponed, and his Honour now gave
judgment.
The learned judge observed that the plaintiff had
entered into a contract with the defendant, the original
terms of which were embodied in the form of a memo-
randum, the plaintiff agreeing to accept an engagement
at the Surrey Theatre, signed by himself and Mr. May,
the director of the theatre. The express terms were,
to accept an engagement with Miss Romer, commenc-
ing on Monday, July 31, the opera season of 1854, at
at 251. a week, and terminating the last Saturday in
September, to appear only to perform in one opera.
This document was dated June 14. Another document
was prepared, signed ky May, and put in by the plain-
tiff as part of the contract in which he engaged with the
defendant. It ran as follows :

" Memorandum of agreement between Mr. A. Braham,
of St. Petersburg-place, and Mr. George Almond, ef 19,
King-street, St. Jaiaes's.—l hereby agree with Mr. George
Almond to sing as first tenor at the Surrey Theatre, com-
mencing July 3L, 1854, and terminating the last Saturday
iu Septeteher, 1854, at a weekly salary of 201. for the first
four weeks, and 25/. a week for the remainder of the season,
and to appear in siz representations at least of the operas
of Bonnambula and Luci di Lammermoor previous to may
appearing in the Prophete. To appear in ono representa-
tion a night, g 0 that I can sing at a concert (not a theatre)
if I feel so disposed, (tigned) AIIGIIS lUS BBAHAM.—
July 11, 1834."

In pursuance of this agreement, plaintiff appeared a eel.-
number of times in Lucia di Lammermoor, and
then he performed in the Proplate, which last opera,
contrary to the defendant's anticipation, proved unsuc-
cessful, and he proposed bringing out another opera, called
the Jewess, an imitation of the French opera entitled
Eleazar, the second tenor part in which is that of the
Prince, but in the English adaptation the part of Eleazar
is given to a baritone, and, consequently, the part of
Leopold, or Prince, is apportioned in that version of the
opera to the first tenor. On the 2d of September plain-
tiff was informed that the Jewess was to be represented,
in which he declined to perform, because, as he said, the
Prince, the part to be assigned to him, was not the first
tenor ; and Mr. May told him he might take the law
upon the subject if he did not choose to perform that
part. However, plaintiff made no retraatation of his re-
fusal, but continued to appear in the two following weeks
in the Prophete. On the 16th, upon receiving his salary
he inquired of May whether he should be wanted in any
of the other operas, and requested to be informed, in
order that he might get the dresses required. The
Jewess was performed, accordirg to announcement,
and plaintiff never appeared in any representation,
and the present claim was for the two weeks'
salary from the 16th of September to the 31st. The Court
was of opinion that the second memorandum entirely
superseded the first, and by the orginal .one it was in-
tended that all operas should be named in the authorised
agreement, which v.as not carried out, but in the sub”-
queat agreement three operas were nanied, whilst plain-
tiff adhered to the previous arrangement, considering
himself only bound to appear in one. There appears to
have been No breach of that agreement, inasmuch as the
agreement contained no explanation of what was meant
by a first tenor. The cunelusion, therelore, was, that
p!aintmff was to undertake whatever part might be as-
signed to hint iu bringing out the piece. It wai highly
improbable that May could have intended to make the
contract as binding on the defendant, notwithstanding
plaintiff's refusal to perform. Under these circum-
stances, plaintiff was not entitled to any portion of
the salary claimed, and there must be a verdict for the
defendant.
The learned judge further said he did not feel himself
justified in allowing back any portion of the money paid
for stamping the agreement.
Costs were applied for, but refused.
Verdict for the defendant,