The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-03 00:00:00

THEATRICAL AGRERMEA TS.-
LEOTARD' S CASE.

The affair of Leotard, the celebrated gymnastic
performer, and M. Dejean, Director of the Cirque,
of which some account has already been given, has
just come on before the Tribunal of Commerce, and
excited considerable interest. M. Dejean brought
an action against the performer, to obtain damages
for having violated his agreement, and to compel
him to execute it in future. NI. Dejean, by his ad-
vocate, stated that in July last he contracted with
Leotard's father (Leotard himself being then under
age) for three months' representations of the young
man at the Cirque at 5,200 fr. a month, subject
to the condition that he should conform to the
rules of the establishment, and wear the
same uniform as other performers. Young
Leotard appeared in November and obtained ex-
traordinary success. In consequence, on the
22d of that month, NI. Dejean signed with him
and his father a new engagement to perform at the
cirque for a year, beginning on the Ist February,
at 3,000 francs a month. The agreement, among
other things, contained these stipulations .—•
"Art. 3. MM. Leotard, father and son, under-
take to assist in the details of the service, and,
as is usual in equestrian companies, to aid in
Preparing
.the ring, to put on the uniform which
shall be given to them, and. to attend any repre-
sentation useful to the service of the Circus. Art.
6. They cannot, under any pretext, not even in
paying the price of places, enter, in the course of
the performances, in any other part of the theatre
than that designated by the director, under pain
of the fine of a quarter of the month's salary for
each offence. Art. 7. In case of malady, the per-
former is bound to remain constantly at home."
But, notwithstanding these conditions, young Leo-
tard had refused to put on the uniform, because he
said it was a sort of livery, and a performer of his
merit ought not to be expected to wear one. The
costume in question, however, consisted of a blue
coat, with blue trousers in summer and white in
winter, and was quite distinct from the dress of
the grooms, which was a livery. The most emi-
nent performers of the Cirque had all worn the
costume without hesitation. Franconi himself
had done so, and so did Leotard's father. Why,
then, should he refuse ? There could be no other
reason than that he was puffed up with his success,
and considered himself altogether superior to
others. He also desired to be seen only in the
tight-fitting web-dress, which showed his figure
perfectly. That such was the case was proved by
the fact that in his " Memoirs," which he had
published, he said, among other things, " All
writers on Greece maintain that the men there
were more handsome than the women, and they
were so because they showed a great part of the
human figure as nature had made it." In addition
to the refusal to wear the costume, Leotard had,
in the evening of the 11th September seated him-
self among the spectators in the first places, and
when summoned by a commissary of police to
withdraw, had declared that he would not perform
that night or the next one. He had, however,
exhibited that evening, but the next day he sent
to say that he was ill and would not appear at night.
The physician of the Cirque was sent to examine
him, but he was not at home, and his mother said
that he had gone out for a walk. When after a while
lie returned, the physician found that he was not
incapable of performing. He had thus undoubtedly
violated his engagement. And yet, in addition to
the large salary paid him, M. Dejean had treated
him with marked kindness ; he had, for example,
given him what are called " gratifications" amount-
ing to 7,250 f., though by his agreement he might,
on certain conditions, send him to perform abroad,
he had only made him go to Berlin, and not to Lon-
don, notwithstanding there was such great curiosity
to see him there that, as Leotard himself said, an
offer of 160,000 f. had been made for six months'
performances ; finally, although the agreement for-
bade him performing any where without M. Dejean's
consent, he had without consulting that gentleman
given a representation for. the deaf and dumb, and
on the Emperor's fete had proposed to the Prefect of
the Seine to fly across the river from trapeze to tra-
peze. The advocate concluded by insisting that what
Dejean prayed for must be granted.—The advocate
of NI. Leotard, in reply, began by complaining that
Dejean had done a very unworthy act by endea-
vouring to cast ridicule on the young man, and
so injuring him in public estimation. If Leotard
had been somewhat dazzled by his success, NI.
Dejean himself was to blame, for he had done all
he could to make the journals praise him, and to
fix on him the attention of the public. The learned
gentleman then went on to allege that the action
was a piece of vengeance on the part of M. Dejean,
because Leotard bad refused to renew his engage-
ment with him from February, 1861. In spite of
that refusal, M. Dejeau had spread the report
that the engagement had been prolonged, and as
that was calculated to injure Leotard, by pre-
venting him from obtaining appointments else-
where, he had contradicted the assertion in the
theatrical journals of the 11th September. That
had irritated M. Dejean, and was the real cause of
the action. The reasons assigned in support of the
suit were mere pretexts. What could it matter
whether Leotard did or did not wear the same
uniform as the other performers ? The whole
affair was a perfect piece of puerility, and should
never have been made the subject of an action.
Yet Leotard had good reason for refusing to put
on the uniform. His performances were dangerous,
and required great calm and presence of mind ; and
could he be fit to go through such rough work if he
were made to hold a hoop for a female performer
to jump through, or to be kicked by a Blown, or to
arrange the sawdust in the circus ? That the eques-
trian performers were required to do such things was
well and good ; but Leotard was not a circus rider,
he was the son of a man who possessed considerable
property, as well as an immense gymnastic estab-
lishment at Toulouse, admitted to be one of the
most complete in the whole world. Leotard knew
nothing of performances in public when NI. De-
jean, having heard of his extraordinary powers,
had gone to Toulouse and tempted him to appear
in public. As to NI. Dejean's showing kindness in
keeping Leotard in Paris, that was one of the
points of which this latter complained most par-
ticularly. In the engagement entered into be-
tween the parties, it was stipulated that, if Lece
tard were sent to any foreign country, he should
have one-half of the sum paid for him over and
above the 3,000 f. a month. For the time he per-
formed at Berlin he had that advantage, and con-
sequently gained considerably more money, but
since then NI. Dejean, seeing that he drew such
immense houses in Paris, had refused to allow him
to go anywhere else, and, of course, the additional
income which Leotard expected was not
forthcoming. Moreover, with respect to the uni-
form, the court had twice laid down that
an actor engaged to perform leading parts could
not, even if so stipulated in a printed agree-
ment, be made to figure as a mere super-
numerary ; and the counsel contended that
those judgments were applicable to Leotard's
case. As to his having seated himself among
the spectators, he was no doubt wrong, seeing
that he had accepted the engagement not to do so
—but would it not have been right to have re-
quested him politely to come away, instead of, as
had been done, sending a commissary of police, who
removed him by force ? With regard to his ill-
ness, was it surprising that he required repose
after performing for ten months ? And during
these ten months he had brought to M, Dejean
the large sum of 400,000 francs, and yet Dejean re-
fused him a few days' rest ! The advocate con-
eluded by declaring that the action was so puerile
that it was not worthy to occupy the attention of
justice, and ought to be dismissed. The tri▪ bunal
held that Leotard had violated his agreement, and
it therefore condemned him to pay I,ooofr. da-
mages for having refused to put on the uni▪ form,
and 750 fr. for having seated himself among the
public; also to resume his services at the Cirque
and wear the uniform, under pain of paying
300 fr. for each night's refusal for two months,
after which the tribunal will decide what was
farther to be done ; likewise, not to sit again
among the public under the penalty of 750 f. for
each offence; and, lastly, to pay all the costs.

NEW HARBOUR
fewNT hundred Ih yards to the
west of the railway company's SLAND.—The new
outer harbour at
pier), commenced by the ma-
gistrates of thatborough little a couple of years ago at an
estimated cost Burnt
lisTlandl3U(a R
-I of about £lO,OOO, now approaches comple-
tion, and will :be opened towards the close of the present
year. It lies imm
ards of 20 acres
into which it opens, and with which it will form a sheltered
win extent. The outer harbour is
n on the east side by a massive stone pier or quay,
running
t in a south-westerly direction : and on the west
docke c
enclosed
sud 0 u
ty new breakwater, extending about NO feet south-east
a omthe further end of the island, and by the island itself,
which, in its turn, is connected with the shore, as our
readers may be aware, by a rough dyke, said to have been
constructed by Oliver Cromwell, and in latter days partly
boarded over by a wooden gangway. The new harbour thus
forms a sort of a triangle, of which the old pier is the-base.
the depth of water will be about 20 feet in spring and 14
feet in neap tides, so that it will accommodate vessels of
very considerable size, and must prove not only useful but
absolutely necessary for the rapidly increasing foreign trade
of the port. Burntisland, as the terminus in Fife of the
Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway, which passes
through the extensive coal and iron districts of that county,
is, apart from its growing attractiveness as a place of sum-
mer resort, steadily acquiring importance by the facilities
which it possesses for the sale of those products. On Satur-
day, while the pier, island, and breakwater were covered
with spectators wat3hing the boat-races, some 15 or 16
foreign vessels, chiefly Danish and German, were being
loaded with coal and iron in the inner harbour, which, we
understand, frequently contains a still larger number. The
new harbour works are being executed by Mr. Chalmers,
contractor, Dunfernaline.—Seotsman.

POLICE INTELLIGEN CE-( THIS DAY.)

BOW STREET.

RING STEALING.—Two young men, named Roberts and
'Williams, were placed at the bar, charged with stealing a
gold ring from the shop of Mr. Cording, jeweller, Strand.
John Scott said he was an assistant to Mr. Cording.
Between five and six o'clock last night, both prisoners en-
tered the shop and asked to look at some cheap ear-rings.
A quantity of gold ear-wires, at about 4s. or ss. a pair,
were shown to them, but they did not like them, and others
of a different description were submitted to them. Roberts,
after looking at them for some time, said he could not find
any of the pattern they required, and, as they could not get
the ear-rings, they would like to look at some finger
rings. A tray of rings was shown to them,
but they said they wanted something' more expensive,
and eventually some of the most expensive articles were
placed before them. The rings in the tray the witness last
produced were worth at least £5 each, but Roberts kept
taking up different rings, and appeared unable to decide
which to purchase; but in a short time he made up his
mind not to buy a ring at all on account of the price, and
in order to compensate for the trouble he had given, he said
he would leave 2s. as part payment for a pair of ear-wires
and call next day with the remainder of the money. After
they had left the shop he discovered they had
stolen one of the rings from the tray he had last
shown to them, which was worth, about £5. He
followed them and came up with them in Chancery-lane,
where a policeman was called and they were both given into
custody. On being searched at the station the missing
property was not found.

Both prisoners pleaded guilty to the charge.
Mr. Henry said he should remand them to see if they
were known to the police.
Roberts said he should like the case disposed of at once,
and if the magistrate sent an officer with him he would
show him where he had thrown the ring.
Police-constable 25 F was dispatched with the prisoner
and in a short time returned and informed his worship that
he had found the ring where the prisoner Roberts had
pointed out.

Mr, Henry said he would much rather dispose of the
case after the prisoners had been seen by the police.
Both prisoners were remanded accordingly.
SELLING BEER WITHOUT A LICENCE.—George Smith,
of 15, Coburg-row, Westminster, was summoned by the
Excise for selling beer without a licence. .

The solicitor to the Excise said the defendant had, after
being cautioned, kept a house open for the sale of beer
without a license. He also had sold tobacco without the
legal authority.
The Excise officer proved the sale of the beer.

In answer to the magistrate, Smith said he could not get
his requisition for a license signed by an overseer. He
should only have been too glad to take out the license.
He had shut up the house, and would keep it so until he
obtained a license.

Mr. Henry—Why did the overseer refuse to sign the
document ?

Defendant—Because I could not get' the required
security.

Mr. Henry—Then you ought not to have opened the
house. As nothing is known against you before, I shall
only inflict a fine of £5, but if the offence is repeated the
full penalty, £2O, will be enforced.