The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-16 00:00:00

Clita ambition

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and Com-
mon Juries.)
WIGAN V. GADDERER.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS stated this Case to the
jury. The plaintiff was Mr. Alfred Wigan, the well-
known comedian, who was the best actor of the class of
characters in which he usually appeared before the pub-
lic, and the defendant was Mr. Gadderer, who sometime
ago had the Lyceum Theatre for a short while. The
action was brought to recover two weeks' salary
at; 101. per week. At the expiration of the les-
seeship of Mr. and Mrs. Keeley the defendant took the
theatre, and he engaged the plaintiff for two months, from
June 24, 1847, at the salary named. Hel contiuned for
some weeks to fulfil his engagement until a piece called
Gun Cotton was put into rehearsal. Mr. Emery, the
stage-manager, assigned the character of Alfred Jumble
to Mr. Wigan, who, finding it the part of a mere walk-
ing gentleman, declined to accept it, his forte being
" light and eccentric comedy," and it was assigned to
a Mr. Johnson. Gun Cotton ran but for a fortnight,
during which time Mr. Wigan played in Marguerite's
Colours, but during the fortnight the defendant fin,pd
him the entire amount of his salary. Now the agree-
ment (which the Learned Counsel read) was silent as to
the right of the defendant to fine the plaintiff. He con-
tended that custom did not justify the course adopted.
The characters which the plaintiff usually played
were of the class of the Clown in Twelfth Night,
and not of the Joseph Surface school Mr. Wigan did
not wish to be considered an actor who gave himself
" airs," but as a man who had received an injury, and
who considered himself justified, since he was a popular
actor, and might injure himself in the estimation of the
public, it he had accepted the character in question.
Mr. Emery proved the agreement. He assigned the
character to Mr. Wigan, because he believed that in his
hands it would have become a principal one. The char-
acter was that of a medical student, and was, in his
mind, by no means an inferior one.
Cross-examined by Mr. ARCHBOLD—The piece was
postponed from Thursday to Monday in consequence of
the refusal of Mr. Wigan. He refused it a week
before the Thursday. Another piece, the Mo-
mentous Question, was played in consequence.
He did not know whether the defendant bad to remune-

rate the author of that piece for using it. Various rules
prevailed in various theatres with respect to fining
actors ; but there were no rules in the Lyceum
at that time.—(Laughter.) This wee the only
part rejected during the time Mr. Gadderer bad

the theatre ; neither: was there any rule under the
previous management of Mr. Keeley. Yes, ene was
fined, but the amount was returned. It was merely
threatened.—(Laughter.) He (witness) was never fined
in his life, and hoped he never should be.—(Laughter.)
Was told that Mr. Wigan had said if he had known
the nature of the character he would have played it.
Mr. Johnson was next called. The part was not
a dialect one. No broken German had to be spoken.
The student was not a German, but was disguised as
one.—(Laughter.) He had only to say something to
induce the old man to give up his daughter.—(Laughter.)
The part was that of a walking gentleman—nothing
more. He ought to know, since he had been a walking
gentleman for ten years.
Cross-examined—He had to tell the old man, and he
did so in the best English he could furnish—(Laughter)
—that if he did not give him his daughter he should
blow his cottage up with gun cotton.—(Laughter.) That
was all he had to do.

Mr. Henry Leigh Murray proved seeing the plaintiff
at the theatre frequently during the fortnight, and that
he played in Marguerite's Colours. The character of
Alfred Jumble was that of a walking gentleman, and
certainly not one which Mr. Wigan should have been
asked to act.

Cross-examined—Would not swear positively that
the plaintiff played in the second week. Would swear
that to the best of his belief the plaintiff played the
same night as Gun Cotton was played.
Mr. Keeley said he was lessee of the Lyceum Theatre
for about three years. No rules existed with respect to
fines whilst he had that theatre ; in fact, no general rule
prevailed in any of the theatres. Had not the pleasure
of seeing Gun Cotton.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. ARCHSOLD addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant. The defendant believed himself badly used,
and surely they could not fail to be aware that actors
were frequently spoiled by their audiences. He com-
plained that he had lost considerably by the conduct
of the plaintiff, who, by his skill in playing cha-
racters, who spoke broken English, would have ren-
dered the character of the German student so famous a
one as to have kept the house open until now; and, con-
sequently, in the bands of the defendant. The plaintiff
had broken his agreement, and could not recover the
amount claimed.

The following witnesses were called :
Mr. Fox Cooper, who said he bad written for the
stage, and had occasionally held the lease of theatres.
He usually fined actors who refused the character as-
signed to them according to_ their position, sometimes
half the week's salary, and sometimes the whole. This
was mentioned in his articles. The fines at Drury-lane
and Covent-garden were ♦ery excessive. Mr. Wigan
might have made Jumble a character.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—The piece was
first offered to him at the Strand Theatre, but he de-
clined it, as it required a leading actor, and his actors
were general actors. He did not recollect whether there
was any broken English set down for the character.
Mr. David Levy, said he transacted business for the
theatre at the time in question. Mr. Wigan told him
that he would have played the character if there had
been any broken English in it. He told him he had bad
the book and might have seen that the character was
one of that kind. He made no reply. The defendant
had to pay a guinea a night for the piece substituted.
Mr. Laurence Levy, the treasurer of the theatre, de-
posed that the plaintiff had admitted, after the piece was
produced, that if he had known the nature of the cha-
racter, he would have played it. To the best of his be-
lief Gun Cotton was not played the same night as Mar-
guerite's Colours. It was usual to.fine persons a week's
salary who would not play. After the fortnight he
played and was paid as usual.
Cross-examined—Had the book, but not here. Had
lent the defendant money to carry on the theatre, and
put the money-takers in the boxes.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS replied.
The case had not concluded when we went to press.
Lord Denman seemed to be of opinion that the plaintiff
could only recover for one week.