The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, May 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor PARKER )
THB RIVAL OPERA. HOUSES.
LUMLEY V. WAGNER.
Mr. BETHELL (in continuation from 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
had 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
to 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 300/. was fixed on
the 15th March, though when the commencement of
Madlte. Wagner's engagement was fixed, the time for the
payment was-also extended to the and of April. Now
he bad to point out to the Court two misrepresentations
—first, that Mr. Lumley had sworn in his affidavit that
he had written to tgladlle. Wagner on the 11th March—
just four days before the time fir payment—when, in
truth, it was not written until the 18t,h; and the second
veal the mistranslation of the French particle de, by
which Mr. Lumley wished to make it appear that Herr
Wagner had written to him to send the money either to
Borlitkor Hamburgh alter the 2nd of April, instead of
what it really meant, not later than the tad 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 part before her debut. Mr, Lumley professed him
self a good French scholar, able to road and write French
correctly, and yet here they found him translating after
the 2d of March, when, if he had been consistent in his
knowledge, he must also have translated that Madlle.
Wagner mast learn her Italian part after her Mat.
Now Mr. Lumley's story was that he had written to the
Wagners to tell them that Dr. BT
her had the money
ready to pay them. Now ho (Mr. Bothell) 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
was required. With great respect to both Me. Lumley
and Dr. Bacher, he did not believe, nor did he think
that his Honour's judicial mind would believe, one word
of this story which they had brought forward. It had
DO 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 hies, 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 Hamburgb, and he would show that very soon
after he sect 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-
bilities, and was utterly unable to pay that which he
owed. Ho 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 irreconcileable 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 ready 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 re•eived a bill of exchange, which,
however, was dishonoured when presented at
Hamburgh. Now that exactly coincided with an ex-
pression used by Mr. Lumley in one of his letters
to the Wagners, that Dr, Becher had undertaken to
tranemit 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 Br. Becher had drawn a bill
of exchange on Mr. Lumley, which was dishonoured on
being presented. Now ho would suggest, that sup-
posing this was true, that Mr. Lumley had
given to Dr. Becher an order for 300/.,
which, however, was dishonoured, they would be able
to account for the statement that Dr. Lacher had 306/.
in his possession ready to pay to Madlle. Wagner without
putting it down as a con:Thee fiction. True, Becher
had 3001., but it was a bill of exchenge, which, in truth,

Was good for nothing. By this theory, too, they could
acc mint for the friendship exising between the
pair, Lumley and Bseher, even after the rapture of
the contract, which if Mr. Lumley's statement
were true, it were msnifcst was owing solely to
Bather's neglect in not payfng that sum; and

alao for the remarka'ole fact that br:Bacher. 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 his!affidavit
filed yesterday, denied that Dr. Becher in his letter of
the 10th March had mentioned anything abut having
the sum of 3001. in his hands. That letter was now at

Berlin, and though a telegraphic messaee had been dis-
patched for it it had not yet arrived. Then with regard
to the prohibitory clause, it was represented by Dr.
Becher that this was inserted in the engage •
meats of all prima donnas in England. That
was not lie fact. Tug engagements of Madame Sontag,
Madame Grisi, and other eminent artists had been re-
ferred to, and ;had been found to contain no such cleu3e.
Ile contended that the clause had been obtained by mis-
- and on that account was utterly vitiate t
He contended, too, that the misrepresentations which
tin) bill contained in reference to the conduct of Mr.
Gye were of themselves sufficient to defeat it. Reap-
peered that Mr. Gye was the first to enter into negotia-
tions with Mademoiselle Wagner, which continued up to
August, 1851. About this time the intimacy sprung up
between the Wagnees 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. Lumley
became apparent, Mr. Gye very properly abstained
from any further communication with them on the sub-
ject of an engagement. When Mr. Lumley's failing
eircurestances became notorious, Mr. Gye then went to
niaaburgh to ranew the negotiation, and so far from
having had recourse to the misrepresentations which
were ascribed to him, he certainly did tell them that
Mr. Lumley had shortly before been arrested for 2,2751,
a fact which was admitted by Mr. Lumley, in addition to
another fact of still worse appearance, that he had been
obliged to assign to one of his creditors some of his boxes
in the theatre in Paris, and afterwards, by the pressure
of further difficulties, to sell those same boxes to other par-
ties. Madlle. Wagner, in her affidavit, did not attribute
the unfavourable opinion which she entertained of
Lumley to the representation of Mr. Gye, but to the
fact of the caution money nut having been paid, nor any
mention of it having been made by Becher in his letter,
and also from information from Madame Sontag and
Madame Taglioni, that their last year's salaries had not
been Paid. Now, ho would just contrast this with the
tielY" made by Mr. Lumley in reference to this par-
nl
34.' 140 w the injunction bad been asked on the ground
Leftifnaraiuuyeallela th©
on the part of Gye, both towards
Wagners, a statement which was con
ad
by the
ailleavits both of G
greater: ye and the Wegnors.
The
part of this bill lied been fremed with the
wish that even if h
the pulakcation of ho
fled
ultimately
in
his object, that
even an injunction
attheseall
statemente, and the obtaining;
of Medlle. 1, would so far damage the repu-
tationWreatTlieer, that even if he did not get her,
atid she would be red ueeless and unprofitable to
Mr. Gye. Now, with
regardbee to
.the fact of this being a
hard bargain, as it h
complained itaLubmeiinnog2
objected Merino. Wagner
hal conl laiendhad only to refer to
the affidavit of Mr.
which wero to be paid
to MadllTmpare the sums
20,0001. which he said
ho had g
to the
ad paid to Ma-
dame Sontag for two and a half years, engagement.
With reference to the allegation which had
P March, 185 en made
that the agreement of the 9th of
aecordine to thel, was
valid agreementernasien law, ha held
in his hived an opinion of a Prussian avocet, Dr. Bach,
which Went to show that so far from that agreement
being valid it was of no valve whatever consequence
of Mr. Lumley to pay the of the neglect havemoney, and
M idemoiselle Wagner could
o h
a_ srecovereda the da-
=Ages which she 004.4 a h ir she stEiined by such
a breach. He belfevea, too, that supposing hunt. u,
agner
had really broken this contract, the penalties for such
breach, according to the P'russian law, would not have
been 3 persons interdict, but indemnification by way
of damages; ants 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 breach 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 far as to visit with all the heavy and severe conse-
quences, which must result from an injection being
grAnted for the breach of the letter of an engagement,
which would only be visited by a jury by the very
srialle3t amount of damages. He, therefore, thougbt
the this was not a case in which the Court would think
itecif justified in interfering by way of an injunction.
It beim.. now twenty minutes past four, the ease was
djourned until to-morrow morning.

MARKET INTELLIGENCE.
(From the London New Price Current, May 7.)
SuGAa.—To•dtsy there, was a falling off in the home
trade demand for West ludia Sugar, yet lower rates
were not taken for grocery or relining sons. At auction
51 kinds 3 tierces 366 brls Barbsdoes sold; brown
313 to 31s 6d, ord yellow 323 to 33s Gd, mid 343 to 35s 6(1,
tad good 361 to 393.

REPINED.—To-day home dealers were anxious to
o)orate in Refined ,St gar, and the market closed with
r(V_liToss; brown lumps at 464 to 463 6 i per cwt. In
1-", nwi Sugar there i 3 a goof deal d mpg for shipping
at full former termi.
Matrarrlta.--Thi
for . s afternoon former rates were sus-
tainedbay, and the Mauritius Sugar Lt the public sales of 6,600
Whole sold ; fine yellow 363 to 375 6d,
low to mid 32a to 34
64, low to mid 243 _
. ;
3c: good to fine brown, 283 6d to 31s
36s per cwt. 27s 6d, ani greyish from 30s to
EAST INDIA.—This idterllo
prov.cn the market for Bengal
Sugar was quiet, yet the
sustained. At auction 3,000 !c2us currency is generally
;in, white Benarne_gs rather more than half
sold, good to
1_365 to 38s, mid 35s to
35s 6d, date yellow from 27j,
and Khaur 24s 6d.
274
6a fQ:10,
t,
141426 s for soft brown,
Of Madras 1,000 bags sold at 25 ,ut:c:
sad at 2€3.3 64 tkO
)''1191", thw ire