The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 21.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
(Before Lord Campbell and Justices Wightman, Erie,
and Crompton).
LIIMJ.EY V. GYE.
In this-case, the plaintiff, Mr. Benjamin Lumley, the
lessee of Her Majesty's 'Theatre, had brought an action
against Mr. Frederick Gye, the director of the Royal
Italian Opera, Covent-garden, to recover damages for
enticing and procuring Miss Johanna. Wagner to break
a contract into which she had entered with Mr. Luml9y
to perform as prima donna at Her Majesty's Theatre in
the season of 1852. The declaration contained several
counts, to which•the defendant pleaded only the general
issue. At the trial, which took place before Lord
Campbell, at Guildhall, at *he sittings after last term,
the jury, in substance, found a verdict for the defendant.
On that occasion Lord Campbell left three questions to
the jury for their consideration-1, whether Miss Wag-
ner's agreement with Mr. -Lumley remained in force
when it was alleged Mr. Gye induced her to break it ; 2,
whether Mr. Gye induced Miss Wagner to break her
agreement; and whether she broke it in consequence of
Ins inducement ; and, 3, whether Mr. Gye at that
time knew that the agreement between Miss Wagner
and Mr. Lumley was then in existence. The jury found
the first two piestions in the affirmative, but they found
the third in the negative—namely, that Mr.Gye did not
know that Miss Wagner's agreement with Mr. Lumley
was at the time in existence. Lord Campbell bad pre-
viously directed the jury that if Mr. Gye bona fide be-
lieved that Miss Wagner's agreement with Mr. climuley
had ceased to'be binding, the scientia was not proved,
and Mr. Gyo would be entitled to a verdict. Upon the
iluding of the jury, the verdict was entered fel. the de-
fendant accordingly.
Sir F. Theater (with whotri were Sir F.. Kelly and
Mr. noggins, Q.C.) now moved, on the part of the
plaintiff, to' set aside the verdict, and to have a new trial
upon the several grounds. The first and principal
ground was, that the finding of the jury upon the third
question submitted to them was contrary to the evidence.
The-learned counser went fully into the evidence given
at the trial, with a view to show that when Mr.Gye, on
the sth 'of April, 1852, induced Miss Wagner to enter
into an agreement to sing at Covent-garden Theatre, lie
must have known that •the agreement which she had
made with Mr. Lumley on the 9th of November, 1851,
was still • subsisting and binding upon her. Know-
ing that circumstance, Mr. Gye, both by his letters
and by a personal visit which he paid to Miss Wagner
at Hamburg, induced her to violate the engagement
into which she had entered. In his letters he from
time to time, in the month of March, 1852, threw out
insinuations that Mr. Lumley would not be able to
open his theatre'aral fulfil his part of the agreement ;
and subsequently, on the sth of April, 1852, on his
visit to Miss Wagner at Hamburg, he offered her the
sum of 2,000/. if she would sing at his theatre, although
he' knew that she had. engaged to sing for_ i longer
period at Mr. Lumley's theatre for the sum of 1,2001.
only. Re thus' bribed Miss Wagner to break her con
tract with Mr. Lumley by the offer of nearly double the
amount which she was to receive from him. It was
then proposed by Miss Wagner that Mr. Gye should
give her an indemnity, and this also was readily given by
Mr. Gye to facilitate.the transaction. The learned counsel
here read M. Wagner's letter,' which appeared in the
Morning Post, but which was proved at the trial to hive
been in the handwriting of Mr. Gye, to show that, in the
early part of March, he (Mr. Gye) represented to
Miss Wagner that her contract with Mr. Lumley was not
likely to be carried out ; and also an extract from an affi-
davit made, by Mr. Gye, in which, in reference to this
subject, he (Mr. Gye) stated that, in the mouth of March,
1852, Mr. Lumley was arrested for the sum of 2,2751.
18s, and remained in custody about three days. He
then read Mr. Gye's letter to Miss Wagner of the 9th of
. March, 1862, in which Mr. Gye said, " There is only
one thing wanting to render the programme perfect—it
is the name of Mademoiselle Wagner. Is there any
possibility of that ! If you think so, write me two lines
because there is still time. It was evident from that
letter that Mr. Gye was aware that at that time the
agreement with-Mr. Lumley was a subsisting agreement.
On the 30th of March Mr. Gye again wrote to Miss
Wagner as follows : _ _ -

, -
"London, March•3o, 1852.
"Dear Mademoiselle Wagner,—Will you have the good-
ness to write me one word in reply to my last letter ? For-
give me for troubling you, but it is said here that your
arrangements are not quite fixed with Mr. Lumley. Is this
true ? My theatre opened last Saturday. The opening. of
Mr. Lumley's. theatre was announced for last. Saturday,
but it did not take place ; it was again announced for to-
night, but was again put off. Another bill has now come
out, in which the opening is announced for Thursday, but
there is much doubt. You will see by the enclosed pro-
gramme, that M. Negrini, the tenor singer of whom I
spoke to you, is engaged at Covent-garden ; the troupe
is fine, is it not ? Excuse me for writing in such a hurry.
Give me two lines in answer.—Believe me, &c.,"F. GTE."
That letter shoived that Covent-garden had at that
time been opened, • but, though it was so important for
the manager to be present, Mr. Gye, on the Ist or 2nd
of April, without waiting for an answer to his letters,
event first to Berlin, and then to Hamburg, in search of
Miss Wagner: He there saw Miss Wagner on the sth
of April, and indaced,her to enter into an engagement
with hina (Mr, Gye) to sing at Covent-garden Theatre.
Mr. Gye's account of what took place at that
interview
Was, that as soon as be entered the room Miss Wagner
said, "Je suis übre," that she was now at liberty to
enter into an agreement with him (Mr. Gye), inasmuch
as Mr. Lumley bad not, kept one of the terms of his
agreement with Miss Wagner—viz., to pay her the
sum of 300/ upon account on the 15th of March. Re
admitted that Miss Wagner wanted him to wait a day
or two longer, but he refused, and at, once concluded an
agreement by which he covenanted to pay Miss Wagner
nearly' double the amount *raised by. Mr. Lumley,
and also to give her an indemnity,
Lord Campbell observed that Mr. Gye knew. at the
time that he was outbidding Mr. Lumley,
Sir F. Thesiger said the account
_ given. of this inter-
view by Miss Wagner to Dr. Bacher, as proved-by Dr.
Bacher at the trtal, was rather different. Dr. Bacher
said,
,!` The first thing she (Miss Wagner) said was, I
haVe committed a very bad action against you.'
What have you d ' I said,
She said, I have signed
another enn-vromento.ne answered, That is impos-
sille.' She' said, '
.As I signed the engagement my
hands trembled, but Mr. Gyo has been here to say to
us that Mr. Lumley ivo.uld not open, and offered me
20,000 f. More, and gave me a guarantee for all the da-
mages. I was so much embarrassed I had not time to
think.'" The learned counsel contended that all the cir
cumstances were strong-to show that Mr. Gye knew the
.agreement with Mr. Lumley was a subsisting agreement,
and that ho had induced Miss Wagner, by a bribe and
indemity, to violate it. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded to contend a correspondence which had passed
'between Mr. Gye and Miss Wagner, and particularly
two letters of the 7th of December, 1.851, and the 9th of
'January, 1852, had been improperly received in evi-
dence. Those letters were well calculated to excite pre-
judice, but he submitted they were not evidence on the
issue. - ---
Lord Campbell -said a part of the iilaintiff's case was
that Mr. Gye nada fide entered into negotiations with
Miss Wagner after gbe had entered into her agreement
With gr.. I,,ugaey there 'otter!' were admitted to
.