The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-10 00:00:00

4rdbitrtb Viitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

of April was: sufficiently excused by tho %letter
of the 9th of March, and also by the communication
which had taken place with Bullet. He really could
not doubt that there was a right of action on this con-
tract, and as to what had been urged upon him with re-
gard to the mis-statements in the bill, he thought that
there were certainly inaecuraci,l9, but not of such
gravity as to put Mr. Lumley in the po-
sition of losing that right of action. Upon
the whole, therefore, he really thought that this was a
case in which, following the view taken by Lord Cot-
tenham, in Dietrichen v. Cabbet, and following, too, the
view previously taken by Lord Eldon, the Court was
called upon to interfere by means of an injunction. The
Court would regret if the view which it took should b 3
found to be erroneous, and injury should be sustained
in consequence by the parties; but he could only say
that he was bound to act in the matter upon
the view which he took of the law. As to
the arguments which had been based on the view
taken by the common law, he did not think that they
were material. It the contract was a valid contract, and
Madlle Wagner was bound not to act in contravention
of it, any reference to the law of the place where that
contract was entered into, or the mode of proceeding
there, was not necessary. The court found a contract,
and was bound to prevent any violation of it so far as it
could. He, therefore, was of opinion that its plain duty
was to continue the injunction.
Mr. BACON a,ked that the motion for the dissolution
might be refused with costs.
His HONOUR said he thought he mutt follow the usual
course in these cases, and matzo the costs, costs in the
I cause.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor PARKER.)
THE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.
LUMLEY V. WAGNER.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition).
Mr. BETHEL', proceeded to say—With regard to
to the law of the case, it must be remembered that the
interference of the Court would only be to prevent any-
thing being dose in violation of the engagement, sad
not to enforce speeific performance. Now the judg-
ments and opinions of thew Court on this subject must be
taken into consideration along with the particular cir•
cumstauces attending them. Now none of the caned
relied upon exactly coincided wich this case, and he con-
tended that when there was an agreement, the specific
performance of which was only enforceable in a court of
law, and to the nonfulfillment of which the common law
had ettached penal•tigh in the shape cf damages only. it
was not competent for the Court to take a part of the
agreement and interfere to prevent the violation of
• rest part, and leave the whole to take its chance.
Ho would conclude by making an offer, which would
show the sincerity of the parties whom he represented.
Thooffers winch he had to make was this, that the in-
jeeteion should be dissoired; and on the part of Mr.
Gyo he was willing to offer that Mr. Gye would per-
seualiy aleawer any nascent ' of damages which Mr.
Lumley might be able to recover in any action for
breaoh of the agreement which he might think fit to
commerce.. elite trusted, in conclusion, that his Honour
would bei able to decide this wee fully and fairly upon
its merits.
His HONOUR then proceeded to give judgment. The
case, he said, had been very anxiously considered by
him, and in its consideratiOn he had been unable to con-
ceal from himself that from the manner in which the
case had been get np; the 'whole particulars and circum-
stances had not been laid before him. The Court, how-
ever, would have to give judgment on the materials be-
fore it. The article upon eta& the jurisdiction of the
Court was founded was the prohibitory clause of the
agreement, and the first quest ion for the Court to con-
sider was, whether that clause was or was not a part of
the agreement between the parties. It appeared that
Dr. Becher was a mutual friend of both parties, and in
October,
was engaged in procuring engagements
for Madlle. Wiegner in London and Pude. He was pro-
gs on the part of Mr.Lumley, with
aided, in his proceedings
a pro tem form of his usual agreements, in which was
oliatained the clause of prohibition which had formed the
subject of so much comment. Otjection was taken to
this form of contract by the Wagners, and the result was
t tat Lumley 's form ot contract was thrown aside, and a
uotv one drawn up, which. being signed by both
p ernes, was carried by Becher to Lumley, at
_eerie. It was, however, objected at once by Mr. Lumley
that the contract did not contain the prohibition,
whereupon is was added by Dr. Becher, and signed by
him as authorised by Iddlle. Johanna Wagner. There
was no doubt that up to this time the Wagners were not
bdund by what Dr. Becher bad done. There was
nothing to show that Becher had authority to add this
clause, and had it not proceeded further he should have
had ere hesitation in dismissing this clause as not bind-
tag
.upon them. But an agency might be created
by subsequent adoption as well as by precedent
authority., Dr. Becher stated that having added tlj
clause, he forwarded it ,to the Wagners, and as ho sofa
was acknowledged by Madlle. Johanna in the letter
of the 17th of November, 1851. Madlle. Johanna how-
ever, stated that this Jetterweferred to the contract of
M. Roqueplan. It was, however, pretty apparent that
from this time they treated this as a coreleact, and they
could not have treated it as a contract and yet re-
pudiated this clause; It must be remembered,
too, that Mr. Lunaley had not signed any
owntract • not containing this clause. Both
Madile. Johanna Wagner and M. Albert Wagner, in
their correspondence throughout, always considered
that there was a coetrect between them and Mr. Lumley,
and as there had been no contract signed without this
clause, it appeared to him therefore that they adopted
the, chew°, and confirmed the agency of Dr. Bacher on
their teethe On this part of the case, therefore, he bad
'no doubt in deciding in the affirniative, that the
chineta was adopted by them. Thc. next point was
the - unfair manner. in which this contract had
been. obtained, and it mutt be rentemberece that alt
the allegations of unfairness were limited to the introduc-
,tion of this clause. Now, he did not think it was a
waiter of dispute between the parties that some clause
of this . kind was whet might be ealled a clause, of
course, in such contracts perfectly fair and justifiable
en the part of Mr. Lumley. It appeared
that on the first commencement of neestiatioue,
and' on the discussion which took place en this clause,
the orjectiocs made by. the Wigeers were not so much
against a clause of this nature, as against this particular
clause as being too far and too general. It must be ob-
serled that Madlie. Wagner in her first affidavit stated
that she earl objected to signing any engagement con-
taining a clause prohibiting her froin singing at private
cencerte, and Mr. Gye's affidavit was to the effect ,
that- in the engagements at the Royal Italian Opera
three was no clause prohibiting the artistes singing at
private concerts. I', therefore, appeared to him that
birth parties considered some clause of this nature as a
matter of co arse. On the contract, therefore, being sent
back to the Wavers they saw the clause, and as they
say of jetted to it, and were only quieted by the as-
surance of Bacher that it should all be
set right when they got to London. That
was denied by Basher, that it must be observed,
however, that might be, but in their correspondence
with Mr. Lauiley they never alluded to the cl.u•e, but
in their communication with Becher th-y spoke of it
more directly, but riot in the way of protest, but only
cem olaioieg or it rs part of a bargain which
they cousidered hard, but yet;, by which they
...tie then hound. It appeared to him, 'there-
fore, that they received this as a bargain by which
thty were bound, and they were iccliced with
their eyes open to ieftre Wen Mr. Lumley to allow them
any eteitetanehoi it. He did not,.thcrefore, think that the
eitiliria (Mild be awe,- to have bun unfairly in:reduced.
-.The onct noint to he cohaldured- was the payment of, the NEW MEMBER.
money. - Now he considered 'that clause. to be an jude- Mr. BUTT, Q.C., took the oaths and his seat for
ponds,,', and not a-conditional Stipulation, and he did not Harwich. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was in-
thiek tee simple non-performance of it would of itself troduced by Sir IL H. Ixcus and Mr. HAMILTON.
-take away ell right-of . action. Though, however, he PRIVATE BUSINESS.
edid trot-eoasteler It a•s a dependent nondetion, it was, he The Lords' amendments to the Ilkley Waterworks
, must, bay-or eesen.tial imeortence in the contract, and if Bill were considered and agreed to.
there had been shown on the part of Mr. Lumley want The following Bills were read a third time and passed:
--of willitignete or good faith to corrsply with the etipula- Aberdeen Boys' and Girls' Hospital.
tient, he thought that gentleman would have come in Dumfries and Maxwell:own Waterworks.
vela-into that Court to ask it to exercise that very Eastern Counties Railway.
itiogtne -power which- it possessed by way Haw Bridge and Roads,
of iejenction. It would be incumbent, therefore, London Gss Light Company.
on that gentleman not having paid the money, Pcrtrush Harbour. -
as it was allowed he had not done, at the time stipu. . Runcorn Improvement.
laced, to show under what circumstances the non-pay. St. Helen's Gas.
meat took plice. to answer the charge which was The following Bills were considered and agreed to,
bretr.s, , • '
~
.._! eagatnat him of non-p=3rformtuce of the contract,
cAanihaelbueos,,r3ed,are,risnedpreatrotnebnaetndEreraadxig..auswtohernairrpdaßptyioina.
des::
eetewas,-etquisite, therefere, carefully to examine what
Oa the with referenetehetot„,tanhahp.arthr.t,o,f_tp4r3oaop/..
Lancashire and Yorkshire and
Bth of Febr
elyitee tte nee' y 1-• 3 dea-ahe " eee York and North Mid-
land Railways.
Cliitass)tolpmapnrodvMemildnitess.hil s and Buxton Road.
' eta. Lutelay for en extenteea of time- for the
LLeeenkdoatind(
stree'Zaoteetsenten. t_ Of her- :Le-eget/attar, 'and Mr. Lumley at ' • 1
Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midlands Junction
pcar il.,,ht mr7.718,112. to that request, but it did not -sp-
pceteene,ent
c;L the
coupled with it a request for the Railway.
awce cam„ t...!•thf,,psynient of the Mt That prove Railway
Passengers' Assurance Company.
the 9th of wittltm A... V,74.,,,:ter himself, -in the letter of
toliamehen he, requested it to be sent, if not Sharpies and Hcghton Road.
to Berlin,
Shields and Morpeth Roads.
the ertiele des,,lnd'lr;ll' on (as Mr. Bethel translated
April. Now_ ho (VA?. Bacon acquiesced) the ed of Macclesfield and Bux_ron Road.
Yeovil and Ilchester Turnpike Trusts.
the time originelee eenad.,Viee-Chancetler) did not think
West Middlesex Water works.
fore think that the lett
eeT:tnroctel,4-caenalthnyoticioinegidnot
conditionaltheree PETITIONS.
' into the arraegement. et tee
eves no more than giving etre
_"3 to him that the direction Mr. DUNCAN presented several petitions from vari-
Scotland against the Maynooth grant.
tha, Wegnerfi would be m tht;t`-'l,lll-ay information where . sus parts of
which they withed the meta, tti-mc, and the wiener in
At that time The Marquis of GR,ANBY presented a petition from
Mr. Lumley swore that Dr. EAcc:•eb: P3id* the guardians of Stamford, praying for therepeal of the
ihni his
hhea nerl3
83 ~!.Bar,
sdblin;s
a, didb been
e n notc 3tni i:. :It
ih al;tlyhtilra.7elati:eaut o.
Bothell,
thin iinci
which
Vestries Act.
Mr. BAILLIE presented a petition from Inverness
to Lumley te prove that that against the Maynooth grant.
requircd. II at alone., remained Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from Roxburgh
in D:. Each3r's hued the whole time. 0_ J
Melee teey found Dr. Becher writiett a letterOa he lOLla of
.wagbeis,
la wheel he ached Mcille. Wainer against the Militia Bill.
to the Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from the Corpo-
coy which he he,
.tr teeete ho ration of Dublin, praying the House to make grants to
Wagners
eet tat eel ewe& their local cheriOes
should pay the money
ready for her. The etku _ - • •
owiregew Colonel FREESTUN presented a petition from the
the receipt of that Ictrer, but now dent
anything as to - tee e-t„ •-
denied attorneys and solicitors of Weymouth stud Melcombe
theft it contained. pay- .gis against the certificate duty.
meat o: the meney. Now' that letter was rim /,,,, Sir B HALL •
B. presented a petition from Marylebone,
rim ed, and all be would. say, . ,a* .`o th!ltwas, that le praying
Wagne:* by `preclacin. et it, wnicn tie might hat., . •. for the repeal of all taxes on knowledge ;also
aerie a petition from the University London,
of Praying to
would at once have been able, if his denial Were true' be allowed to return. a Member to Parliament.
to e roes it n 6 such offtr had been made. .To this' mrsp
SPOONER presented several petitions from va••
it ertthee-fmed !ladle. Wagner replying one he letleot ries,
Marelieteltino Weohee . that Rite should be at Schwerin REYNOLDSeir.parotof the country against the Maynooth grant.
. presented a petition from the R
up to to theWommenceraent of Peseion Week, - and during man C •
atholic inhabitants ot Morpeth against the Cha-
. the whale of that week at Hamburgh. On the, 18th citable T
March they found this Wagers receiving a letter Colonel usTlßill.
from Mr. Lumley, consenting to an enlargement Hartlepool a
OMPSON presented a petition from
of the glaieeirom - the commencement of her engage- M. iiiii Jyatansitt t)he Extradition of a:setters Bill.
meat; and informing them that, Dr. .Bacher had sin- haven Sgttinat the Maynooth presented a petition from White-
meat;
--to forward to them a bill of Exchange for Mr. kitywhe T aynooth grant.
300/. Now it did not appear on what day the Wagners against the'
Militiaft Ilhpresented a petition from Derby_
arrived at Hamburgh, and to could have wished very Mr. COWAN "l•
much that it had appeared, for the next race that they different puts
of
tizeosei presented a number of petitions from
Sir G.,PECE,r_.
_t and against the Maynooth grant.
found in tee case was, that WI the sth of April, the first
day in N=silnliVe(k. and the very day on which Madlle. praying for thl:urt!l presented noted a petition from Brighton
Wagaer had informed Dr. Becher
that she should reach Sir J. pAKII6NIoxof church rates.
Hanicrigh, and r ould meet him there fur the purpose of from Jamaica aud the ot.
erprfesented two petitioua, one
being conducted by item.-bite to England—they found plsining of dittrees and ;II . frog. British Guinea, cam.
The MASTER ag for relief.
M. Wegner entering into an engagement with Mr. of the
from Southwark, ROLLS resented • • •
Gye on behalf of his daughter, -treating the contract Praying that hoe a Petition
with Mr. Lumley as at an end, and entering into an en- ehempted from the Charitable T pitals may not be
tirely new one. If he were asked to consider whether' Jatitaczste Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented • •
they were justified in so doing by the non-payment of ' a petition from
the money he really felt obliged to say that the none nisters of religion in Jamaica,
corn l . the rai-
Wing distress of that island, and praying dining of the ex-
peyment of' the poney weetteeffecieptly excused by the '
eirceastanc.e3 whfc'a toy: place. The limits given to takewneasures to enable the inhabitants to the House to
petitioi 'from to remove it
Mr. Lauri, Y. vrere the Arrival of the Wagners also a the chief
at pace burgh, end yet here they found fhern • other judges, barristers, selitetors justice, the
eteweacene et 7:,, te„agezeott on , the first ,• lir, in the jaw ia
primes , the' and others
on • - daysame island
'''c'teh -Dr . issehtr-7.ae b
wasl4ers
4.v ; .. .. . , e een informed that the "'taint:De , •
i v the same compiaiut, and prayiett
taeries where Ifor protee-
therefor, th:;44i- •he. at Hamburgh. , Ile thought 'lion against -a° is slaves prevail. lie
- air Me 't '. sc c..i.,urostances, the defendants Secretary of .
State for the Colonies in asked the
were not 'We t ae:petitions,
_ , refereee,!;. to the
a new th.,titt___
'with
the sth ot March in entering into prayer of the foregoing . whether the attention of
earl prott%'t
it,th tale. Gye, oe its eeteeeeg into a her Majeety's Government will be directed, in the course
existed with Mr. itdetttyg an end tee that which already of the next sessioe, if not in the present session of Peale-
not aerie; that eredtitterie.Y. It that were the case, ha did ment, to the distress in the island of Jamaica, and in
of any cenetqneuce,i:egzuhich to::,k place afterwards was ' other colonial dependencies of the Crown, teat a view
and trio cireumeitarces atthehin face, the whole contract to relieving the same, either by continuance of the
folgivavrit " wore than
'aqlt nte its fulfilment or non- differential duties on slave-grown sugar, or by
was tendered on the tete et ett, °ed. The money a reductionof the duties on free labour sugar, or by any
was etteuatei-,by ehe circunsetuleenehaad an earlier tender other mode which they may recommend to the wisdom
the centreeteevasa broken.; DT, ialvutieh took place after of Parliament, regarding :tuck a subject as an exult.
he ben natet4tegte with him at tit
teibtu had, swore that j lion, on 'moral grounds, to the general question of free
no reason to elebbr but tfrat te had- th' and there wase trade. - - -
es a means of performing' the contractta sum with-him i e Sir J. PAKINGTON said it-would be-in the recol-
'Ansley, Thu von-payment of the nett 1
andthe part of ; lection of the House that on a previous cecasion he had
time eittendieir between the 15th of March ring the I answered a similar question to this. Ile stated then
. . Ole 15th ! that although he was deeply sensible of the distress that
.

The court was crowded during the day's proceedings
even more densely than it had been on the two former
days.

TATTERSALL'S.-THIS EVENING.

SUFFOLK STAKES.
2 to 1 agst St. Antonio

Su O'CLOCK.

DERBY.
7 to 1 agat Alcoran
7 to 1 egst Hobbie Noble--taken
.7 to 1 apt Little Harry
13 to 1 agst Stockwell
13 to 1 agst Claverbouse—taken
14 to 1 apt Alfred the Great
17 to 1 agst Kingston
25 to 1 agst King of Trumps
25 to 1 agst Orelio—taken
30 to 1 agst Augur
33 to 1 agst Elcot
1,000 to 10 agst Treasurer
1,000 to 10 agat Nabob

OARS.
8 to 1 agst Gossamer
9 to 1 agst Songstress—taken
10 to 1 agst Trossisn
CLEVELAND HANDICAP.
3 to 1 agst Lenny Whent

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS;

The LORD CHANCELLOR took hi seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second
reading of this Bill. Having already, explained the ob.
jects of this Bill, his Lordship sail that he did not
think it necessary to go into its details on the present
aces s

Lord CRANWORTH said he did not mean to op-
pose the Bill altogether, although he doubted somewhat
of its successful working, inasmuch as be thought suitors
would not always be inclined to rest satisfied with an
inquisition into their anirs carried on by an official bear-
ing no higher rank than that of a judge's clerk. He
thought some measures might be de►ised by which the
master's duties should be devolved on the registrars.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this was the
first time that he had heard such a proposition made,
but at first sight it appeared to him that the registrars
were at present too much occupied by their own duties
to be able to hear an additional burden.

Lord LYNDHURST advised their Lordships to ad-
here to the recommendation of the Commmission as
embodied in the present Bill.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
referred to a Select Committee.