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

~}turtt V2tittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor PARKER.)
THE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.
',MILEY V, WAGNER.
BETEEELL (in continnationfrom 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
lied 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
t 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 remuneration 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—
juse four days before the time for payment—when, 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
83r1in or Ilamburg'a after the 2nd 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 piet before her dait. Mr. Lumley professed him -
eel:tt good French scholar, able to read and write French
correctly, ancifyet here they found him translating after
th% ed of March, when, if he had bean consistent in his
kno Arledge be must also have translated that Madlle.
Whetter must learn her Italian part after her delnit.
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. Bet'nell) 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 he would have
furnished Dr. Becher with that sum so long before it
wee required. With great respect to both Mr. Lumley
and 1)r. Becher. he did not believe, nor did he think
that his Hone ar's judicial mind would believe, one word
of this story which they had brought forward. It had
no elements of credibility or probability about it, and
its own contradictions were sufficient to destroy it.
Next came the account which Dr. 'Becher gave of the
conduct of the parties at Hamburgh, when he saw them
there after the contract with Mr. Gye 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. Gye 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 he would show that very soon
alter 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, but it was certain that he had just before
been arrested, that he was covered with debts and
lia-
and was utterly unable to pay that which he
owed. He thought that any rational man, looking at
the circumstances and the conduct of these parties, and
then considering the representations they had made, in
Which every part was irreconcileabie 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 that if he had he was teddy 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 recsived a bill of exchange, which,
however,, wee dishonoured when presented at
Hamburgh. Now that exactly coincided with an ex-
preeeioa 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 affidavits that Dr. Becher had drawn a bill
of exchange on Mr. Lumley, which was dishonoured on
being presented. Now he would suggest, that sup-
pdetng this was true, that Mr. Lumley had
given to Dr. Becher an order for 3001.,
ta /doh, however, was dishonoured, they would be able
to account for the statement that Dr. Becher had 306/.
iw his possession ready to pay to Madlle. Wagner without
Vatting:: it down as a complete fiction. True, Becher
had 300/., but it was a bill-of exchange,: which, in truth,
was good for nothing. By this theory, too, they could
aiersunt for the friendship existing between the
leer, Lumley and Bacher, even after the rupture of
the contract, which if Mr. Lumley's statement
wore true, it were manifest was owing solely to
Beciser'e neglect in not payfne, that sum; and
also for the remarkable fact that Dr. Becher 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 hislaffidavit
flied yesterday, denied that Dr. Becher is his letter of
the Nth March had mentioned anything abut having
the sum of 300/. in his hands. That letter was now at
Beeitn, and though a telegraphic massage had been dis-
patched thr it it had not yet arrived. Then with regard
to the prohibitory clause, it was represented by Dr.
Backer that this was inserted in the engage-
teens of all prima donnas in England. Twat
was tie.: the face Tee eneag Madame of edame Sontag,
Madame Grisi, and other eminent artists had been re-
ferred to, and had been found to contain no such clause.
He contended that the clause had been obtained by mis-
repreeentation, and on Chet account was utterly vitiated.
He estatended, 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. Gye was the first to enter into negotia-
Cone with Mademoiselle Wagner, which continued up to
August, 1351. Abont this time the intimacy sprung up
between the Wagners and Dr. Becher, and the course of
misrepresentations on the part of that gentleman
began. The moment that the inclination of the
Wagners towards an engagement with Mr. Lomley
became apparent, Mr. Gye very properly abstained
teem any further communication with them on the sub-
ject ref an engagement. When Mr. Lumleeda failing
circumstances became notorious, Mr. Gye then went to
Ithalburgh to renew the negotiation, and so far from
hiving had recourse to the misrepresentations which
were ascribed to him, he certainly did tell them that
lire Lumley had shortly before been arrested for 2,275/ ,
a fact widen was admitted by Mr. Lumley, in addition to
" 19thaa fact of sOl worse a earance that he had been
obligee to PP '
in theassign to one of his creditors some of his boxes
theatre in Paris, and afterwards, by the pressure
of further ti; •
aamflteulties, to sell those same boxes to other par-
ties.tee usefavourahl
1 a nee in her affidavit, did not attribute
Mr. Lumley to egopinion which' she' entertained of
fact. of the ease the
representation of Mr. Gye, bat to the
meetien of it having'nmoney not having been paid, nor any
aced also from information
been made by Becher in his letter,
.orreation from Madame Sontag and
Madame Tagnoni,
that their last year's salaries had not
haen paid. Now, he
would just contrast this with the
ads davit made by mr. Lumley
in reference to this per-
NOW the injuncotinonthe
c had been asked on the ground
of .raudulent conduct part of Gye, both towards
Lumley and the Wageees, a
statement which was con-
teadteted by the affidaytts both of Gye
greater pert of this bill had and the Wagners.
Ti c been framed with the
wish that even if he failed ultimately in •
his object,that
, and the obtaining
the publication of these statement:
evir.„, an injunction at all, woeld so ta-rhdeadmiadgne the repu-
tation of Idadile. Wagner, that even if
still she would be rendered useless and unprootfigaebtlher'
Mr. Gye. Now, with regard to the tact on thistbeien to
it had been e a
Lard bargain, 113 , objected Madlle. Wagner
the sum
had complained of its bring, ha
end
only to refer to
the affidavit of Mr. Lumley,
‘Et.nd compare
which wore to be paid to .uadlle,
Wagner to the
s
been made
20.0001. which he said het had paid to ma_
dame Sontag for two and a hat
.etears' engagement,
With reference to the allegation wnich had
that 'the agreement of the 9,1 i of March, teei,
was %
vend agreement aceordine to the Prussian law, he held
in his hand an opinion or a Prussian (meat, Dr. Bach,
which went to show that so far from that agreement
being valid it was of no value whatever in consequence
of eke neglect of Mr. Lumley to pay the money, and
Mademoiselle Wagner could have recovered the da-
insg's which she could show she had sustained by such
ss broach. He believed, too, that supposing Mdlle. Wagner
had really broken this contract, the penalties for such
breach, according to the Prussian law, would not have
been a personal interdict, but indemnification by way
of damages; and he contended that the law of contracts
was a species of lex loci, and that no such penalty hav-
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 breech could be proved, was indemnification
by way of damages. Even if it were brought to a trial,
he did not 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 tar 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
smallost amount of damages. He, therefore, thought
that this was not a case in which the Court would think
itself justified in interfering by way of an injunction.
b •
sing now twenty minutes past four, the case was
ullourniq until to-morrow inoraiw.

„_CC)ivitSE OF EXCH.
, ....maw ..„,,,
blvt ,
~” t, -e...• • .. 12 11:4
Itotterd,)°°atha** 12 '''''''
Aztv7tro„..•;•***•• •• •2 211
DrusBels.... „•,2 7. •.25 63
Tlartably.„o, „,...z." • • '25 63
.
Altozr •..11. 13 i i Va,
Pari.,, 3 1.2.; s slght ..., 25
rittc,„ a tnGntba
IV, r 131! : ' 4+3
BO Lira :...;LX • • • . • • • . ..
itanliilr L• L oil 3i C.lllO ....
-_
. 12 43
itto.• effec. fla•••••• 12 40
t.,'.:-
X---' /111.9ribi.. gl2,Sil• .1018.. 37
...4i -fl ~
, ..• ,- ---- 7-st:aAd, oti.,-- -••• •• 49%
0, •• ••••••
efeli;:, . fe........, 497.
(~.....----o\l
Bire44.2lis. ....... .....
____—
1ie7111!PM"..";.".:;.............=,
Queenstown
having
his
relof the c--------oritots at CarlisTeT--ort
.----Mr litaijo his escape on Saturday lest.' ja, eff t
etxtilidin ffre dress of one of the superintendents,
ViOUSIY br9keiu open a box and stolen 30/. therefrom pre-
_

ANGE.-(THIS DAY.)
(-41'.:raltex.. • • ..........
Lleeroaorn...... .... ....
.• .. .... .......• 120 i 1,6,1:1
Allan ................
Venice.. .. .. .. • • • • ....
gaples .... .. ••••.. • • 4^1.4
Palermo, peroz ........ 121%
ailf Janeiro
el;— ...... .... ..: ...• 4-3%
i
ilnenos Ayres .••• • • • • 1..T9.7 York 60 clays'aight
?hiladelphia .. ••• • • •
'RIM! OP BULLION, PER OZ.
!'oreign Geld in bars . • .£3 17 9
ortugal Gold Cointt 0 0
%)4111-11h1)0uble ..
C 0 0
I'lol, bollaa°lll :: 0 4 1014
1 ilivor in h", - " • ' •
........—__ •- • ...... e 4 1134

-
144,

r. 1-