The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-05 00:00:00

LAW INT.ELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE RIVAL OPERA HOUSES.-LUMLEY V. GTE.

The argument for making the rule absolute in this
celebrated case, which had been adjourned from Thurs-
day last, was resumed this morning.
_ _ _

Sir F. Thessiger, Sir Fitzroy K Ily, Mr. Hoggins,
Q.C., and Mr. Huddlestone were for the plaintiff, and
the Attorney-General, Mr. Bramwell, Mr. Creasy, and
Mr. Wills were for the defendant.

Sir F. Thesiger, in opening the argument in support
of the rule, said that the most convenient course would
be to adopt that pursued by the learned gentlemen who
were opposed to the rule, and consider the propriety of
receiving the evidence, which he (the learned counsel)
had, upon the part of the plaintiff, objected to. The
offence for which the action had been brought
was wrongfully seducing Madame Wagner to
abandon her engagement with Mr. George Lum-
ley, and doing so maliciously; and the action
might be divided into three questions for consideration
—first, the existence of the contract ; secondly, the
knowledge of its existence by the defendant, Mr. Gye ;
and, thirdly, whether, with a knowledge of the existence
of that contract, he had induced the lady to break her
engagement. Acting upon the decisions of the court,
he apprehended that the damages would only be so
much as the actual loss plaintiff had sustained by
the breach of engagement, and that no damages
could be sustained for the malice ; and what
he upon the part of the plaintiff complained of
Nag that evidence wholly irrevalent to the action had
peen introduced, and done with a view of damaging the
' character of the plaintiff. The Attorney-General upon
the trial had complained that. they, the plaintiffs, had
set the example by attempting to prove that Mr. Gye
sad been the aggressor, and for that purpose it was ne-
cessary to call Dr. Bacher to prove the negotiations
ind a letter of Madame Wagner described him, Dr.
Bacher, as a most satisfactory charge d'affaires. The
learned counsel then went into a history of the negotia-
',ion of Dr. Bacher on behalf of Mr. Lumley, and added
that in Nov., 1851, Mdlle. Wagner had given Mr. Gye
to understand that she had engaged through Dr. Bacher
to sing at her Majesty's Theatre, and there was then no
suggestion thrown out that Dr. Bacher had used any
cunning to supplant Mr. Gye, whom they the de-
fendants alleged had been under a sort of un-
derstanding that she was to appear with him
(Mr. Gye), and therefore such could have only been
introduced upon the trial by the defendents with a view
to influence the jury against the plaintiff. He contended
that the simple matter at issue and for the jury, was the
question of the contract, and therefore the evidence was
not admissible. The whole evidence went to show
that Mr. Gye was fully aware of the existing contract,
and had done all in his power to induce her to break her
engageintnt. If that was not the case, why had Mr.
Gye—not in the fair spirit of rivalry—troubled him-
self to instruct the Wagners about Mr. Lumley's condi-
tion ? What business was it of his ? Might not Madame
Wagner's engagement have bean the cause of Mr. Lum-
ley's recovering his position ? Why, Mr. Mitchell had
taken three times his usual amount of boxes.
The Wagners knew the position of Mr. Lumley's
affairs as proved by the letter, which spoke of him as be-
ing at his dernier soupier. At that time they might have
denied the contract. Why had Mr. Gye travelled day
and night to reach Berlin, and see Miss Wagner, and
that at a great loss to himself, having just opened his
awn theatre, unless with a view to obtain her from
plaintiff I
Lord Campbell—He went to see if she was free.
Sir F. Thesiger.—How could that be, when he did
not know until he got upon the continent that the 3001.
had not been paid—why, if he did not feel the contract
was in existence, offer her an after season at the Covent
Garden Opera House, when her engagement had ter-
minated with the plaintiff. Again, why all the secresy
about her name being put in his programme. The learned
counsel concluded by stating that it was clear defendant;
knew the contract was in existence, and did not think
that Madle. Wagner had been fairly released from her
engagements with Mr. Lumley.
The letters in the Morning Post about the non-pay-
ment were an excuse for the breach of agreement with
plaintiff, and merely an after-thought to screen them,
the Wagners and Mr. Gye, from the consequence of
their conduct.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly followed upon the same side, and
had not concluded when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Comtni%sioner Goulburn.)

IN RE GROOII.-A BAD SPECULATION-HEAVY LOSSES.

This bankrupt had carried on business as a miller, at
Bray's Mills, Berkshire, and to-day came up for
his certificate. He commenced business in December,
1851, with a clear capital of 2,1311. 15s. 3d., and now
owes to creditors 1,9371. 18s. 9d., and to ditto holding
security, 6361. The assets are, goo,' debts, 4501., pro-
perty 5151.

- Mr. Hart, clerk to Mr. Nicholson, the official as-
signee, said he considered the assets were fairly stated,
and the capital was vouched for. The bankrupt had
well kept a sale book, but no cash book. The losses
were made partly of a stun of 4001., paid for the good
will of the business, and the trade expenses in about two
years had been 2,2601.

- His Honour said he could not understand how the
expenses could have been incurred, and the bankrupt
said he had paid 1,330/. for the rent of the mills.
His Honour said that the bankrupt, a young man not
20, to buy a business worse than valueless, and so lose
2,000/. WAS very foolish, and the creditors would also
lose 14s. or 15s. in the pound by him. Under all the
circumstances, a certificate of the second class would be
granted.