The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-15 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAY.

M'CARTHY V. BUNN.
The action in this case was brought by the plaintiff, an
actor, against the defendant, the lessee of Drury-line The-
atre, to recover damages in consequence of a breach of an
agreement alleged to have been entered into between the
parties.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated that the plaintiff was a na-
tive of Ireland, and some time since he arrived in London,
and having been successful as an actor of Irish characters at
the Cork and other theatres, he addressed a letter to Mr.
Yates, acting manager of Drury-lane Theatre, requesting an
appearance, either in Doctor O'Toole, in Tice Irish Tutor, or
in Teddy the Tiler. In this letter he added that he was ready
to rest his claim to an engagement by his performance in
either of these characters, and the result was that he obtained
an appearance in the part of Doctor O'Toole on Oct. 26 ;
but as the piece was the last of three entertainments, he
laboured under the disadvantage of exhibiting his skill as an
actor when a considerable portion of the audience had left the
theatre, and the rest were nearly worn out by fatigue. His
performance, however, went off to the satisfaction of all
present, and having succeeded so far, he became naturally
anxious to learn upon what terms he was to be engaged by
the defendant, and therefore proposed to enter into an en-
gagement for the season at 61. a week. The defendant, in
reply to this proposition, promised to give the plaintiff an
answer the next day, and under an assurance that he was
to receive an engagement, the plaintiff repeated the same
character the following night with still greater success. He
was in the bills of the ensuing morning advertised for a new
character ' • but it unfortunately happened that at this pe-
riod The Siege of Rochelle, together with The Jewess,
were brought out, and those pieces being found to answer
so well, the defendant declined availing himself of the plain-
tiffs services, notwithstanding the understanding which had
previously existed between them. Under these circum-
stances, the plaintiff sought compensation at the hands of
the Jury.
Mr. William L. ,Bede examined by Mr. EaLE—He was
acquainted with stage business, and had written several
dra:natie pieces. He was at Drury-lane on the night the
plaintiff made his appearance in the character of Dr.
O'Toole. His performance was extremely successful. It
was the general understanding that, when a performer
came out once, and appeared a second time at the same
Theatre, that an engagement followed. He should 52y
that the plaintiff was entitled to 8/. or 9/2 a week at Drury
Lane Theatre.

Mr. J. 0. Cumming examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE
—Witness was a writer of dramatic critiques, and was at
the theatre when the plaintiff appeared in Dr. O'Toole. It
was a very creditable and spirited performance. Witness
thought that at Drury-lane he was entitled to 7!. or 8/. a
week. If a party be announced a second time it is usually
considered that an engagement is to follow, but if the party
happened to be unsuceessful an the first appearance it was
generally in the bills of the succeeding day that " due nc-
tice would be given of his second appearance."
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Ay, that is what is called letting
him down softly.--(A laugh.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—Witness
wrote theatrical articles for the Dispatch newspaper, and
was not at all on bad terms with Mr. Bunn.
Mr. Benjamin Webster bad heard the evidence given
with respect to the appearance of the plaintiff, and consi-
dred that an engagement was understood.
Mr. Charles Kemble examined by Mr.. Sergeant WILDE
—Witness had some experience in theatrical manners, and
should say that, supposing a performer to make a success-
ful debut, and to be still more successful on the second
night, and then to be announced again in a third bill to per-
form a new character, he was entitled to an engagement.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then, on behalf of the de-
fendant, observed that the real question for the Jury to
decide was, whether or not a contract was expressed or
implied. The plaintiff had given no evidence of the exist-
ence of any contract. If plaintiff had performed with
such brilliant success as his friends and himself represented,
was it probable that Mr. Bunn would have objected to en-
gage him, especially as he had offered his services on such
low terms ? The fact, however, was, that no engagement
whatever had been offered to the plaintiff, nor had any sum
been mentioned as the salary which lie was to receive.
Mr. Frederick Yates, examined by Mr. Sergeant TAL-
TouaD—Witness was acting manager of Drury-lane
Theatre, and was so in October last. The plaintiff applied
to him by letter of the 20th of that month to appear in an

Irish character at Drury-lean Theatre, which induced him
to communicate the proposal to Mr. Bunn, who had no
objection to his playing- in The Irish Taior on the 266
of
October. He was told, however, that he could not phay
exempt in the third piece. Witness never made ..:he
tiT any offer of either 61. or 41. a week, and decidedly he
should say that his second appearance had nothing to du
IviAit;n engagement.
Vic CHIEF JUSTICE here suggested whether it would
not be better to leave the matter to the arbitration of
13arristor appointed by both sides ?
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said that Mr. Bunn wt‘s Pre"
sent, and as he wished to do all possible justice to.
6.thu
e
plaintiff, he was quite ready to adopt the kind suggeso
thrown out by his Lords Nip, to refer the. matter to agen'
tleman at the Bar.
The plaintiff's Counsel haling assented to the arrange"
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, returned
verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the reference.