The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-18 00:00:00

•
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT Or CHANCERY, Dec. 16.
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARYLEBONE BANKING
COMPANY AND OF THE ACT 11 AND 12 VICT., CAP.
45, FOR WINDING UP JOINT-STOCK comramEs.
Mr. C-LASSE moved to discharge an order of Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, made upon a petition presented
under the above Act and referring it to the Master to
take the accounts and wind up the affairs of the said
banking company. That company was formed in 1841, I
and it ceased to do any business in 1842 and ever since.
In 1843 a bill was filed by certain of the shareholders
against the others and against the directors, and in that
cause (which is entitled " Deakes v. Stanhope," and
which has been the subject of frequent re-
ports in this journal during the years 1846 and
1847), an order of reference was made, and the
Master had proceeded to:take the accounts under that
order. One objection to the order of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce was that it was not necessary, as the ac-
counts could be taken under the order in the cause.
Another objection was that Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce referred the matter to a different Master, so that
all that has been already done would be useless if this
order were to stand. He also contended that the case of
this bank did not come within the provisions of the Act,
which appeared by the references therein to the pre-
vious Acts of the 7 and 8 and 9 of Viet., for facilitating
the dissolation of railway companies, to apply to compa-
nies that were carrying on business at the time of applica-
tion for the order to wind up, whereas this banking com-
pany had ceased to do any business ever since 1842. He
further contended that the three petitioners who obtained
the Vice-Chancellor's order had not a qualifying in-
terest in the bank. One was the widow of a share-
holder whe had disposed of his shares; another was a
director of the company, and defendant in the cause of
" Deakes v. Stanhope;" the third was a holder of five
shares, and was improperly joined in the petition with
the director and defendant in the cause, in which it
being
sought to make the defendants personally liable as
charged with fraud in their management. The
proceed-
ings in that cause would be injuriously affected and
em-
barrassed by the reference under the Vice-Ch anc ellor's
order, which was applied for and obtained for that very
purpose. It would, at all events, be proper to inquire
first, before any step was taken on the order, how far it
would interfere with the order in the cause, of which it
did not, nor did the petition, take any notice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without hearing Mr. Bacon
and other counsel on the other side, said he had not a
doubt on the construction of the Act of Parliament, that
it applied to this case. The circumstances of this bank-
ing company, as stated, made it one of those cases con-
templated by the provisions of the Act. It was possible
that the reference under the order in the cause may be
brought to a termination before the order in the peti-
tioners' case be carried into execution, but the reference
under that order will supersede farther proceedings in
the reference in the cause, unless the Court in its dis-
cretion thought it proper to interfere. His Lordship was
of opinion that an order upon petition in this and the
latter cases was most convenient, and he affirmed the
Vice-Chancellor's order.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec.l6.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and Cora-

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 las-
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. He continued for
some weeks to fulfil his engagement until a piece called
Gun Caton 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 fined
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 tine 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 cha-
racter 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. lie refused it a week
before the Thursday. Another piece, the Mo-
mentous Question, was played in consequence.
He did not know whether the defendant had to remune-
rate the author of that piece for using it. Various roles
prevailed in various theatres with respect to fining
actors ; but there were no rules in the Lyceum
at that time.—(Laughter.) This was the only
part rejected during the time Mr. Gadderer had
the theatre ; neither was there any rule under the
previous management of Mr. Keeley. Yes, one 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 charace'r 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 (laugh ter.—(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. ARCHBOLD 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 hands 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 had written for the
stage, and had occasionally held the lease of theatres.
Be 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 very excessive. Mr. Wigan
might have made Jumble a character.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cua3IBERS—The piece was
first offered to him at the. Strand Theatre, but he de-
clined it, as it required a leading
f 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. I.lr. Wigan told him
01
that he would have played thecharacter
him he had hadter if there had
been any broken English in it. He
the book and might have seen thatth,Ahearactee was
one of that kind. He made no reply.
bad to pay a guinea a night for the piece substituted
Mr. Laurence Levy, the treasurer of the theauttre.vaa
de-
posed that the plaintiff had admitted, after the pi„,'
produced, that if he had known the nature of the cha.
meter, 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 twfine 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. CHAXBERS replied.
Lord DENM AN then summed up the case; and Thejuryimmediately gave a verdict for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed, viz., 201.