The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEvas, July 22,
(Before Mr Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
TELBIN V, PECHTER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the eminent
theatrical scene painter, against Mr Fechter, the well-
known tragedian and lessee of the Lyceum Theatre, to re-
cover a sum of £136 ss, being the balance alleged to be due
to him for services rendered to the d3fendant in his profes-
sional capacity, in the production of the tragedy of " Ham-
let" at his theatre.

Mr Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr Shaw were for the plaintiff ;
and Sergeant Ballantine and Mr Coventry were counsel for
the defendant,

It appeared that in the month cf February of the present
year the defendant sent for Mr Telbin and informed him of
his intention to produce the tragedy referred to, with new
scenery and effects, and he desired him to paint the former,
and he was to bo paid the sum of £lOO for his services in
this respect. Mr Teibin agreed to these terms, and some-
thing was said about the scenery being ready by the 20th
April, but according to the evidence of the plaintiff he was
unable to complete his work by that time, and that one cf
the reasons for that was, that Mr Fechter discharged his
principal stage carpenter, a person named 13eze, and em-
ployed a Frenchman named Gaudin in the same capacity,
and as he could not speak English, and Mr Telbin could
not speak French, they had great difficulty in communicat-
ing with or understanding each other, and that this caused
considerable delay. It appeared that the scenery was not
sent to the theatre until the 14th of May, but ou the part
of the plaintiff it was said that this was not of any
consequence, inasmuch as Mr Fechter, who was to play
Hamlet, met with an accident in the month of April, and
he was ordered by his medical adviser not to perform for a
month, so that if the scenery had been ready by the 20th
of April it would not have made any difference, as the play
could not have been brought out owing to the condition of
Mr Fechter. VY hile the work was going on, the defendant
paid Mr Telbin £270 on account, and it appeared that
about the beginning of May be became very angry with
the plaintiff, and wrote him several letters, iu one of
which he stated that he had lost £2,000, in consequence of
his not having fulfilled his agreement to complete the
scenery by the 20th of April, and which sum, he said,
Mr Telbin's painting would never restore to him in cash ;
aad in another he stated that " if Mr Telbin's conduct in
causing him to lose his money cid not strike him with re-
morse, he was sorry for his conscience." The reading of
these letters caused a good deal of laughter in the court,
particularly the one containing the last mentioned observa-
tion, and another in which he requested him to come to his
house and talk the matter over •' over a pipe." The plain-
tiff, in his evidence, positively denied that he had ever
undertaken to complete the scenery by the 20th of April,
and said that all he stated was that hs would endeavour to
do so, and it appeared that after the scenery had been
delivered at the theatre, which was on the 14th of May,
he went there for the purpose of putting a few finish-
ing touches to some of the scenes, which is always neces-
sary under such circumstances, and which according to the
plaintiff's statement would not have taken him more than
four or five hours to complete, and he was refused admis-
sion, and he was eventually compelled to bring the present
action to recover the balance of his claim, he having, as ho
alleged, actually spent £290 out of his pocket for assistance
and other matters connected with the work that he had
performed.

Sergeant Ballantine, in his address to the jury for the de-
fendant, said that he resisted this claim on the ground that
the plaintiff had positively undertaken to have the scenery
ready by the 20th of April, and that by failing to so, the
defendant had sustained a very serious loss, as his object
was to produce the play of "Hamlet" on the anniversary
of the birth of Shakspere on the 23d of April, and although
his accident might have prevented him from strictly
carrying out his intention, still, if the scenery had been
supplied at the time specified, the play might have been
proiuced much earlier than it really was, and on this
ground ho contended that having broken his contract, the
plaintiff had already been sufficiently paid for the work he
had performed.
Mr. Fechter was summoned as a witness, and his version
of the transaction was, that the plaintiff positively under-
took to have the scenery ready by the 20th of April, but
that it would require some extra exertions, and he said
he agreed on that account to give him LlOO. Ho also said,
that under ordinary circumstances he should not have
paid Mr Telbin for the scenery a larger sum than £3OO, and
he gave him the additional amount upon the consideration
that the work should be done in a shorter time. He stated
in addition to this that when the scenery was delivered on
May 14 it was in a most incomplete state, and he was com-
pelled to postpone the performance for a week, and during
that time he paid £7O to other artists to complete the scenery,
and also had to pay the whole of his company a fortnight's
salary, during which the theatre was closed, solely, as he
alleged, on account of the plaintiff having failed to perform
the contract which he had entered into.

Baron Martin having summed up, the jury almost imme-
diately said they were of opinion that Mr Telbin had not
made a contract to complete the scenery by the 20th of
April, and they returned a verdict for the full amount
claimed.

The learned Judge said he concurred in the verdict, but
he could not help at the same time expressing his opinion
that Mr Fechter had misunderstood the nature of the
agreement that was entered into, and that he had given his
evidence as to the contract under this impression.
A long and uninteresting right of way case was then die-
posed of before Mr Justice Willes, and this concluded the
business of these assizes.

Theacoramission jwill be opened on Monday at Maid-
stone, where there aro already nearly 60 prisoners for trial ;
one of them is charged with murder, and there is also
a case of conspiracy to cast away a ship. Most of the
other cases are of the ordinary description.

LONDON GAZETTE.—Last Evening,

WHITEHALL, JULY
.21,

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be
passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a
Baronet of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire-
land unto Liir Charles Lyell, of Kinnordy, in the county
of Forfar, and the heirs male of his body, lawfully
begotten.