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

LLOYD'S SHIPPING--(THIS DAY.)
LONDON, MAY 7.—Wind at coon S.W., light variable
airs, and fine.

BELFAST, MAY s.—Wind N.—Arid. Undino, Bar
badoes.

SHIELDS, MAY. 6.—Arrd. Inca, Callao. Ski. Equity,
Quebec. The Wenlock has been got off Tynemouch
Rocks.

PULTENEY TOWN, WICK, MAY s.—The Splendid,
Newcastle to Drogheda, which was stranded here 25th
ult., has got off, after throwing part of cargo overboard,
and has been brought in here.
DEAL► MAY 6.—Wind N.E.—Arrd. Preciosa, Rio
Janeiro, for Trinidad; Hero, Demerara. Arrd. from
the River and sld., Henrietta. South Seas; Witch, Hong-
Kong; John Merrick, New York.
FALMOUTH, MAY 6.—Arrd. Ceres, Guadaloupe for
Havre; Fortuna, Baltimore for Bremen; Europa,Manillo.
SWANSEA, MAY 6.—Wind S.W.—Sid. Golconda,Cuba.
QUEENSTOWN, MAY s.—Wind S.—Arrd. Henrietta,
Ichaboe for Liverpool; Onega, Barbadoes.
SLIGO, MAY s.—Wind E.—Sld. Henderson, Quebec.
LIVERPOOL, MAY 6. —Wind N.—Arrd. Owen Potter,
and Progress, Calcutta; Mary Ann, Folliott, Mauritius;
Windermere, James Curson, Lady Louisa, and Maria,
New Orleans; Lady Raisell, Mobile; Mary Anna,
Baltimore; Sirius, Callendhorg; Charles Richards,
Fraser, Monte Video; Fanny, Mobile; Virginia, Char-
leston ; Kedar and Havannah, Baltimore ; Vitus
Malaga. Off port, William Hutt, Bombay and Barbadoes,
Sld. Samuel, Halifax; Gleniffer, San Francisco; Mary,.
Cuba; Huron, Quebec; Mincius, Shanhai; Pickwick,
Valparaiso; Rubies, Hayti; Grenada, New Orleans;
Caroline Nisrnitti, New Philadelphia; St. Jacob, Ad-
miral Moorson, and William Ward, Boston.
OFF PORTSMOUTH, MAY 6.—Wind N.E.—Arrd.
Maidstone, Nash, Calcutta.
POOLE, MAY 6.—Wind N.E.—Sid. Stanley, New.
foundland.

TORBAY, MAY 6.—Wind N.E.—Sld. Mary Sharp,
Wheaton, Dalhousie.
CLYDE, MAY s.—Acrd. Cingalese, Leech, Trinidad.
Sid. Mary Ann, Havannah.
SUNDERLAND, MAY 6.—Wind N.W.—Sld. Exchange,
Quebec.

HULL, MAY 6.—Wind N. W.—Arra. Queen Victoria,
Turner, Charleston; Elizabeth, Sheeley, Licata. Sid.
Jane Sawyer, Narva; Emperor steamer, Can ton, St.
Petersbnrgh.

VICE-CHANCERY —(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vico-Chancellor PARKER.)
THE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.
LUMLEY V. WAGNER.
Public curiosity, which has been so largely excited in
this case, was this morning on the tip-toe of expectation.
The court was tightly packed with anxious auditors,
and as there is but one door for high and low to the
little top attic which the Woods and Forests have fitted
up and dignified by the name of a Vice-Chancellor's
Court, his Honour had as much difficulty in finding
his way to his seat as if he had been fighting for a geed
place in the pit on the night of the fair litigant's deb 'lit
Having to dispose of a case in his private room, it was
after 12 o'clock when his Honour came into court, and
during the whole of this period of delay the crowd con-
tinued rather to increase than to diminish. Many
parsons had come, as visitors do to an assize in a country
town, determined to have a long day of it, with their
sandwiches in their pockets, and indeed there were all the
signs of the excitement which is generally supposed to
be attached to a murder trial. Iles Honour having at
length taken his seat,
Mr. BETLIELL said that ho appeared in this case for
Madlle. Johanna Wagner and Mr. Gye, tho defendants,
to move that the order for the injunction might be dis-
charged. lie might say that it was long since he had
felt ao much interest in any case, because they were
here to decide what should be the line of conduct of a
young lady, whom he thought he might say had been
the victim of misrepresentations, and in consequence of
which so much bad her health failed that it was doubtful
whether, whatever might be the issue of this case,
Madlle. Wagner would bo able to fulfil her engage-
ment with either of the parties. He thought ho
should he able to show that the injunction which he now
sought to dissolve had been obtained by misrepresenta-
tion, falsification, and suppression on the part of Mr.
Lumley. The state of the law was, that if it had not
been for the clause stipulating Madlle. Wagner should
not sing at any other theatre but Mr. Lumley's,
the Court would not have interfered, or have
granted the injunction. He would show, however, that
so far from this stipulation having been inserted in the
agreement with Madlle. Wagner, she had positively for-
bidden Dr. Becher to insert any such clause ; and after
it really had been added to the agreement, Madlle.
Wagner having remonstrated with Dr. Becher, he un-
dertook to obtain from Mr. Lumley a modification of
this stipulation when they had arrived in London. Now, it
must be observed, that Dr. Bacher was the recognised
agent of Mr. Lumley, and though he did not weal) to
make any personal attack on Dr. Becher, it was certain
that that gentleman had engaged for more than he could
perform, and that it was on this mistaken trust to
Dr. Bather's power of obtaining this modification, that
Madlle. Wagner had refrained from any more open re-
monstrances against this injurious condition. This
would be one of the chief grounds on which he should
rest his argument for the dissolution of this in-
junction. It had also been represented unintentionally,
perhaps, but certainly falsely, that no engagements were
made in England with artistes except with such a con-
dition annexed. That he would show was not the case.
Another ground on which he would rest was the failure
of Mr. Lumley to comply with one of the conditions of
the agreement, the pre-payment of the sum of 3001. to
Madlle. Wagner. This money was not paid as stipulated,
nor, as he would show, was it ready to be paid; and the
time having elapsed Mr. Lumley was served with the
usual notarial protest on the part of Madlle. Wagner,
that she considered the engagement at an end.
Against this Mr. Lumley's answer was founded, first
on u mis-translation of the French words of Herr Wag-
ner's letter; and, secondly, on the assertion that Dr.
Becher had the money ready to pay before the stipu-
lated time. Now, that Dr. Bucher had the money was
more than doubtful, that he had offered to pay was de-
nied, and that he had not paid it was placed beyond a
doubt. Not content, however, with one mistransla-
tion, but for the . purpose of prejudicing the lady
in the mind of the British public, he bad resorted to
another—be meant the words in Herr Wagner's letter
which had been, rendered in Mr. Lumley's affidavit,
" England was only to be valued for the sake of its
money." Now, the real meaning of those words was,
that " England only rewarded with money;" meaning
that foreign artistes did not receive in this country that
attention and reception which was accorded to persons
of that rank in foreign courts, but that the only re-
muneration and reward which they received was
the largeness of the salary. Now, with re-
gard to the prohibitory stipulation, the affida-
vits of Mr. Lumley and Dr. Bather
were in•
tended:to lead the Court to believe that it was inserted
with the free will of the Wagners—the accounts of the
two, however, differed from each other considerably.
Becher said that it was omitted, when the contract was
first signed, by mistake, although in a former part of
his affidavit he said that this very article had been the
subject of great consideration, between the parties. It
also appeared that Mr. Lumley bad furnished Dr. Be-
cher with a form of the usual contract which he made with
foreign artistes, in which it appeared that there was a
stipulation of this nature, and yet the Court was to be-
lieve that with this printed form before him Dr. Becher
had by mistake omitted this prohibitory article. Now, the
Wagners in their affidavits stated that Becher came to
them with Lumley's printed contract in his hand con-
taining this stipulation; they objected to this prohibi-
tory article altogether, and refused positively and
determinately to sign any contract containing
it. On the suggestion of M. Meyerbeer,drew
the celebrated composer, Herr
up in writing a contract which he and. hisW daagunehrt r were
ready to sign. This, in fact, was signed by daughter
opar-
ties, and Becher was sent back to Lumley with
his return, however,
thish
him, and
to the Wagners withhwitpiro, hibi-
tory clause inserted, they remonstrated
distinctly told him that that very clauseß had been'
acher then said
ob-
jected to from the very first by them.
in extenuation, that ho had not time then to return to
Lumley, but he would undertake, when they arrived in
London, that a fresh engagement should be made
without this clause. He could also show, from the
familiar letters which passed between the Weepers and D
Dr.
Becher, the Wagners were perpetually complaining
of
their prohibition. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to read letters, in which repeated expressions were used
by the defendants significative of their dissatisfaction at
this clause. Whatever might be the opinion of the
Court as to the prohibition, there was no doubt that it
was an article on which there had been considerable
dispute,
which had been repudiated by the defendant,
and the Court would no doubt feel that this was
not a provision to which this lady could be legally,
equitably, or morally bound. Becher had evi-
dently made statements. to both parties which
he was not authorised to do, and if Mr. Lumley
had been
,unwise enough or incautious enough to trust
Dr. Becher 's professions in direct contradiction of the
Wagner repudiations, Mr. Lumley must bear the conse-
quences. He thought, on the whole, the Court would
not think that this condition had been added to the
original contrast in such a manner, and so entirely above
all doubt, as to make it one the fulfilment of which
should be forced on the young lady by the extraordi
nary means sought to be put in force against her.
The Learned Counsel then read Madlle. J. Wagner
affidavit, stating that when Becher came to
.her li3erin
with a printed torm of agreement containing
etnh
re-
striction, she had refused to sign any
hagreitemwast-ansun
con-
taining such a clause; that Becher told er
in all engagements to. insert. it; that Mr. Lumley had
engaged all the principal. artistes in England at
Wagner
his theatre ; and that
went to Covent Garden': she Mademoiselle would have the
wils universally in the
whole press against her, as
he (Mr. Bothell) thought
interest of Mr. Lumley.
hT
This,
for it must have been
was very creditable. to
Thetepaffidavits of Mdlle. Wagner,
a gratuitous service.
and her father, then went on to depose the facts which
be bad already stated with reference to the transaction.
(The case was proceeding when our report left, and
is expected to last the whole of the day.)

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
CANNAN AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. SOUTH-EASTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action of trover to recover the value of
a quantity of timber which had been deposited with the
company. The facts were, by consent, stated in a spe-
cial case, from which it appeared that a person, named
Nash, deposited some timber in a wharf belonging to
the company, on the understanding that it was to be
delivered up on payment of the wharfage charges, Sub-
sequently Nash became a bankrupt. After the fiat was
issued he sold the timber without the knowledge of the