The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-07 00:00:00

Platt ambition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor PARKER.)
THE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.
LIINLEY V. WAGNER.
Mr. BETHELL (in continuation from our Afternoon Edi-
tion) said—The Court had now to judge between these
two stories, and he thought that the force of circum-
stances went substantially to show that the bill which
had been filed gainst his clients was founded entirely on
fiction. Now, with regard to the second part of the
case, the money question, it was agreed on all hands
that there was a precedent condition originally intended
to guard against expenses which they might incur in
leaving their own country, and against the contingency
—which had often occurred to foreign artists—of not
receiving any rerauneration after they had come to this
country and rendered their services. Now the time for
the original payment of this sum of 3001. was fixed on
the 15th March, though when the commencement of
Mdlle. Wagner's engagement was fixed, the time for the
payment was also extended to the 2nd of April. Now
he had to point out to the Court two misrepresentations
—first, that Mr. Lumley had sworn in his affidavit that
he had written to Madlle. Wagner on the 11th March—
just four days before the time for payment—wheat in
truth, it was not written until the 18th; and the second
was the mistranslation of the French particle de, by
which Mr. Lumley wished to make it appear that Herr
Wagner had written to him to sand the money either to
Berlin or Hamburgh after the and of April, instead of
what it really meant, not later than the 2nd of April.
The same word de had been used just before, when
Herr Wagner had said that it was necessary, that his
daughter had need of rest to learn the Italian words of
her part before her debtit. Mr, Lumley professed him-
self a good French scholar, able to read and write French
correctly, andiyet here they found him translating after
the 2d of March, when, if he had been consistent in his
knowledge he must also have translated that Madlle.
Wagner must learn her Italian part after her debda.
Now Mr. Lumley's story was that he had written to the
Wagners to tell them that Dr. Becher had the money
ready to pay them. Now he (Mr. Bethel') was sorry
to say that he feared that Mr. Lumley had not had for
some time such an abundance of money in his exchequer
as to render it at all probable that be would have
furnished Dr. Becher witu that sum so long before it
was required. With great respect to both Mr. Lumley
and Dr. Backer, he did not believe, nor did he think
that his Honour's judicial mind would believe, one word
of this story which they had brought forward. It had
no elements of credibility or probabdity about it, and
its own contradictions were sufficient to destroy it.
Next come the account which Dr. Becher gave of the
conduct of the parties at Hamburgh, when he saw them
there after the contract with Mr. Gr.) had been entered
into. That was equally absurd and full of improbabili-
ties. According to him, Madlle. Wagner had no sooner
signed the engagement with Mr. Gyo than she repented
of it, and only consoled herself with the idea, inspired as
it were by prophetic divination, that she would go to
England and leave the courts to settle who was to have
her.—(Laughter.) Then Mr. Lumley appeared on the
scene at Hamburgh, and ho would show that very soon
after he sent to England for Mr. Mitchell, who joined
him with a considerable sum of money in his pocket.
How much money Mr. Lumley had in his pocket he
could not say, bat it was certain that he had just before
been arrested, that he was covered with debts and lia-
bilities, and was utterly unable to pay that which he
owed. He thought that any rational man, looking at
the circumstances end the conduct of these parties, and
then considering the representations they had made, in
which every part was irreconcileahle with the real truth,
would feel convinced that the father and daughter
ought to prevail, and that the truth was that neither
the father nor the daughter had the least reason to be-
lieve that the travelling Doctor had the 3001. in his
hands, or chat if he had he was ready to pay it. Now they
had lately discovered that Dr. Becher had written to
a gentleman connected with the musical world, in which
he said he had received a bill of exchange, which,
however, was dishonoured when presented at
Hamburgh. Now that exactly coincided with an ex-
pression used by Mr. Lumley in one of his letters
to the Wagners, that Dr, Becher had undertaken to
transmit to them a bill of exchange for the 3001. Now,
it was true that Dr. Becher had denied in an affidavit
that he had ever written such a letter, but it was
proved by aalaeits that Er. Becher had drawn a bill
of exchange on At. Lumley, which was dishonoured on
being presented. Now he would suggest, that sup-
posing this was true, that Mr. Lumley had
given to Dr. Bacher an order for 3001.,
which, however, was dishonoured, they would be able
to account for the statement that Dr. Becher had 3001,
in his possession ready to pay to Madlle. Wagner without
putting; it down as a complete fiction. True, Becher
had 3004, but it was a hill'of exchange,: which, in truth,
was good for nothing. By this theory, too, they could
account for the friendship existing between the
pair, Lumley and Becher, even after the rupture of
the contract, which if Mr. Lumley's statement
ware true, it were manifest was owing solely to
Bacher's neglect in not payfng that sum; and
also for the remarkable fact that Dr. Bacher had not been
made an original deponent in this matter. He contended
that this contract had been wisely and justly broken.
It must be remembered that Herr Wagner, in hisiaffidavit
filed yesterday, denied that Dr. Becher in his letter of
the 10th March had mentioned anything about haring
the sum of 300/. in his hands. That letter wee now at
Berlin, and though a telegraphic message had been dis-
patched for it it bad not yet arrived. Then with regard
to the prohibitory clause, it was represented by Dr.
Becher that this was inserted in the engage-
ments of all prima donnas in England. That
was not the fact. The engagements of Madame Sontag,
Madame Griei, enl other eminent artists had been re-
ferred to, and .flats been found to contain no such clause.
He contended that the clause had been obtained by mis-
representation, and on that account was utterly vitiat'd.
He contended, too, that the misrepresentations which
the bill contained in reference to the conduct of Mr.
Gye were of themselves sufficient to defeat it. It ap-
peared that Mr. Gyo was the first to enter into negotia-
tions with Mademoiselle Wagner, which continued up to
August, 1851. About this time the intimacy sprung up
between the Wagners and Dr. Becher, and the course of
misrepresentation) oa th© part of that gentleman
began. The moment that the inclination of the
Wagners towards an engagement with Mr. Lumley
became apparent, Mr. Gye very properly abstained
from any further comtnnnication with them on the sub-
ject of an engagement. When Mr. Lumley's failing
circumstances became notorious, Mr. Gye then went to
Hamburgh to renew the negotiation, and so far from
having had recourse to the misrepresentations which
were aecribed to him, he certainly did tell them that
Mr. Lumley had sherny before been arrested for 2,2751.,
a fact which was admitted by Mr. Lumley, in addition to
an
other feet of still werse appearaece, that he had teen
obliged to assign to one of his creditors some of his boxes
in the theatre in Paris
and afterwards, by the pressure
of further difficultiestosell these same boxes to other par-
ties. Madlle.
Wagner' in her affidavit, did not attribute
the unfavourab'e elan
Mr. Lumley to the reprete.ritadon of Mr. Gye, but to the
fact of the caution
mention of it htoenTo been
not having beau paid, nor any
and also from information
, that made by Becher in his letter,
tile from Madame Sontag and
Madame Taglioni
Nov, he
Woold'r last ear's salaries had not
been paid.
just contrast this with the
affidavit made b' Mr. Luetiej in reference to this par-
ticular.; e h Now the had n asked on the ground
of fraudulent conduct on the part of Gye, both towards
Lumley and the Wagners, a 8
statementwhich' was con-
tradicted by the affidavits both Gye and the Wagners.
The greatest part of this bill had been framed • h
with the
wish that even if he statements, and failedthe obtaining
ultimately in his object, that
the publicetion of these
that even if he did not get her,
even an injunction at would so tar daand unprofitable to
mage the repu-
tation of gadlle. Wagneert'd useless
with regard to the fact of this b-•
still she would be render
Mr. Gye. Now,
hard bargain, as it had been objected at _-Ing a
e. vy agner
bein he had. a
had complained of its only to refer to
the affidavit of Mr. Lumley,g and compare the
Madlle. Sums
which were to be paid ,_, Weer to the
20,000/. which be said h ot naenarsPaid to Ma_
dame Sontag for two and a half
1851" made
With reference to the allegation which had been
that the agreement of the oth of March, , wasa
valid agreement according to the Prussian law, he held
in his hand an opinion of a Prussian avocat, Dr. Bach,
which went to show that co far from that agreement
being valid it was of no value whatever in consequence
of the neglect :of Mr. Lumley to pay the money, and
Mademoiselle Wagner could have recovered the da-
mages which she could show she had sustained by such
a breach. He believed, too, that supposing Mdlle. Wagner
had really broken this contract, the penelties fur such
breach, according to the Prussian law,
would not have
been a personal interdict, but icderanification by way
of damages; and he contended that the law of contracats
was a species of lex loci, and that no such penalty hv-
ing been contemplated in the contract itself, it could not
now be imported into it, and that, therefore, the only
remedy which Mr. Lumley was entitled to, even
supposing a breach could be proved, was indemnification
by way of damages. Even if it were brought to a trial,
be did no: think that a jury would be likely to return
more than a shilling or a farthing damages, and he
thought the Court would scarcely stretch its jurisdiction
so far as to visit with all the heavy and severe conse-
quences, which must result from an injunction being
granted for the breach of the letter of an engagement,
which would only be visited by a jury by the very
smallest amount of damages. He, therefore, thought
that this was not a case in which the Court would think
itself jostili,,d in interfering by way of an injunction.
being now twenty minutes past tour, the case was
adjourned' until to-morrow taorniug.

„__C(MiRSE OF EXCH
__.
....,,stur-,..,
..
Dit=t>.:llre.emo,..,,%*** 12 IN
Bottereana .. -u...• 12 2
Antwerp ...... ..,• ”' '• 12 2%
8ru6ae15.....„„
.:".••• 25 65
BaTaburgb ...„ ..aiii. 25. 65
A.ltona•• ••••••••••„,. la 11%
rsrl3, 3
,I,.ys,,,,inht
....-.- r'4lertno• percA•
Dltto, 3 months .... 25 Z 554 ',Cassino .....,
Marseilles •••• •• •••• •• '4 65 rm.- ••• • ..
Bourdoaas.. •. - .... . __
ke.0rt„,.......
hanks 3fains.... 1221, )..0 Ja.neir.
....._
Berlin •••••••••• •• •• •• -- ''' ;elle. 2.34.yr:.3
........
Vienna, effec. do •• •• • • 12 40 p,7! lc,6odays'sight
12 4a i+aneiphia .
Trieste, ditto. ••••- • • • • luess ~ •-"• • ••
Petersburgh,il/.Rble.. 37 Foreign G.,,,, arruon. PER 02
alLfarld •. •• •- -••• •• •• 49% Po,a ,T.lnbars.. £3 17 9 .
Cadiz •• .., ~..• • • •••• 49% APantabilj°l'lCoin •• o 0 0
()abloom.
Barcelona .. • • ........ New Dal -•• 0 0 0
ars
1ievni5...........""" nba ::::- 04 10
.. 0 4 lix
One of the convicts at Csrlible Fort, QA
Cork, made his' escape on Saturday last, lie eeffeustown,
escape in the dress of one of the superintendents, havingted i.,110
IfiglialY broken open a boa and stolen 301. therefrom ''-'

.N GE.-(THIS DAY.)
I I,e,shorn 20 80
'Clan .• - • • • • • .0 .• • • • •
• • • • • • • • ---

;tiaplei

40• X

122

53%
53%