The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-08 00:00:00

BETTING AT MANCHESTER-FRIDAY.

There was a good muster at the Rooms this day, but
business was not so extensive as it has been for some days
past, and was confined entirely to the Cesarewitcb, for which
the greatest amount of support was awarded to ➢tail Train.
100 to 6 was offered on the field for the Cambridgeshire.
Closing prices :--

CESAREWITCH.
sto 1 agst Mail Train (taken)
6to 1 agat Gratitude (wanted)
9to 1 agst Thalestris (taken)
9to 1 agst Calista colt (offered)
100 to 6 agst Lady Hylda (taken and offered)
25 to 1 agst Cathedral (taken)
25 to 1 aget Suspicion (taken and offered)
100 to 3 agat Planet (taken)
40 to 1 agst The Brewer (taken)
66 to 1 agst Beaver (taken)
66 to 1 agst Blackdown (taken)
1000 to 15 agst Dr Syntax (offered)
100 to 1 agst Myrtle (taken)
CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
100 to 6 on the field (offered)
25 to 1 agst Srockinger (taken)

THEATRICAL DISPUTE.

At the Liverpool County Court, on Thursday, there was
tried, before Mr J. K. Blair, the judge, and a jury, the
action of Branson v. Heath, which was brought to recover
possession of the manuscript of a drama, entitled "Lillian
Trafford," or its value. Mr Wilson appeared for the plain-
tiff; Mr Cobb for the defendant.
Mr Wilson said the plaintiff in this case was Mr Wm.
Scholes Branson, lessee and manager of the Adelphi Theatre.
and the defendant was Mr Theodore Heath, manager of the
Colosseum Theatre, and licensed victualler of Liverpool. It
was an action to recover either the manuscript of a drama
written by and belonging to the plaintiff, entitled "Lillian
Trafford," or the sum of £lO, the value of it. The simple
question the jury had to decide was, had the plaintiff
a right to the manuscript, and was it detained by the
defendant? If the MS. were given up to the plaintiff the
damage sustained would, on the payment of the costs, be
reduced to a mere nominal amount. The plaintiff was for-
merly a professional actor, and in 1861 was engaged by the
defendant to perform at his theatre. Mr Heath, knowing
I that the plaintiff was an occasional composer of dramas,
ask d him if, during; his engagement, ho could produce any
novelty. The plaintiff replied that ho was then engaged on
a drama that would, he thought, be of more than ordinary
interest. The drama being finished, it was played for 18
successive performing nights during the plaintiff's engage.
ment, and it was considered to be a very successful pro-
duction. From time to time the plaintiff wanted to know
what Mr Heath intended to pay him for a copy of the piece,
and on the last night of his engagement he went to that
gentleman and requested to receive some remuneration. Mr
Heath was at that time in the money-taking place; he had
a great deal to do ; and, after some discussion, he agreed to
give Mr Branson £2, when the manuscript was han'led
over for the purpose of a copy being taken. Mr Branson
was about to proceed to Aberdeen to fulfil an engagement
there, and the arrangement was that the manuscript should
be left with Mr Heath to take a copy from, the original to be
returned to him. Now the jury would have to say whether
Mr Heath merely purchased a copy of the drama for £2, or
whether ho gave that sum for the original manuscript. Mr
Branson had written several times to Mr Heath to have the
manuscript returned, but possibly this action would never
have been brought had not Mr Heath in the early part of
the year advertised the drama as his property and for sale,
when Mr Branson thought it necessary to vindicate his
right to the property. It was not the question whether the
manuscript was worth £lO or 10s ; all they had to say was
—did it rightfully belong to the plaintiff,
In accordance with the suggestion made by his Honour,
it was decided that the verdict should be for the plaintiff,
the manuscript should be given up, and the damages re-
duced to a merely nominal amount.

The plaintiff, having corroborated the statement of his
advocate, said he wrote two characters in the drama espe-
cially for himself, for he appeared in the drama as the twin
brothers. (. laugh) He made acharge of £3 for a copy
of the manuscript, but took £2. Saw as adverisement in
and he
aeta uchmenth ashou three
guineas was time to bring an action. Had received
guineas for copies Of pieces written by him, and as little as
38s. In cross -examination the witness said the piece ha]
a sensation scone in it, Mr Heath might have registered
the drama, but it was nevertheless witness's property.
Mr Henry Franklin, theatrical agent, prove] causing the
insertion of an advertisement in the Era stating that the
piece called " Lillian Trafford" was for sale, and that the
sole property in it belonged to Mr Theodore Heath. The
piece was mete valuable through having been performed for
three weeks, as it was stamped with popularity.
Mr Cobb, for the defence, said that Mr Heath had pur-
chased the manuscript, and he had registered the piece and
got it licensed. Mr Branson was in very needy circum-
stances at the time he received the £2, and Mr Heath was
very kind to him. Were there any real grounds for the
action, it would have been brought long ago, and the plain-
tiff would not have allowed so much time to elapse. The
piece was written for Mr Heath, and was his sole property.
It had been performed at the theatre in Hull, and on Mr
Branson threatening an action against the manager of that
establishment, Mr Heath wrote him a letter complaining of
his audacity in claiming the piece as his property after the
writer had paid for it, and trusting that he should hear no
more of his "impudent bombast."
The defendant was called, and said he asked the plaintiff
on one occasion if he was not good at " hashing" a piece,
and if so, what would he write him one for, as witness had
a fine water scene used in the representation of the " Pirate
of Savanna," which he wished to introduce ? The plaintiff
replied that he had no rehearsals, that witness had been
very kind to him, that it would be pastime to write such a
piece, and that ho would make no charge. Witness told him
he could introduce a rock in the scene, make the " heavy"
man throw the leading lady from it into the water, while he
himself might, if he thought fit, jump in after her and save
her. (Laughter.) Witness named the title of the piece, and
it ran for three weeks. Mr Branson took the sensation part,
but witness believed that he broke down. (Laughter.) Mr
Branson asked one night if would be too much to give
him for the piece, and witness said " certainly not," and
handed over that amount: Mr Branson afterwards wished
witness to return the manuscript, and offered to give him a
sovereign if he would do so. Declined to do so, as he had
got blocks specially for the piece, and asked what did Mr
Branson want the manuscript for? He replied that it
might be of use to him on his benefit nights, and witness
said he might play the piece on such occasions, and he

would lendhimhis woodcuts.
Benjamin Stoddart and another witness named Barford
were examined, and they stated that they were playing at
Mr Heath's theatre in 1861. They heard the plaintiff say
he was writing a drama for Mr Heath. Mr Stoddart and
Mr Heath also stated that the plaintiff on one occasion at
Mr Squire Greenwood's applied for permission to play
"LillianTrafford?'
His Honour left it to the jury to say whether there had
been an absolute transfer of the property to the defendant,
or whether the .E 2 was given merely for a copy.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, gave a verdict
for the plaintiff fur £lO, that sum to be reduced to is on the
inauubeript being given up. The costs of witnesses were
allowed.

The Gazette de France announces that the Duke
de la Rochefoucald-Dandeauville died the day before yes-
terday at his Chateau of Aroiaiuvilliers, in his 79th year.