The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-18 00:00:00

MACKIE V. LEGGETT.

This was an action for penalties on the 6th of Geo. IV.,
c. 125, for not taking a pilot on board between Dungeness
and Dover, according to the 19th section of that statute.
The declaration contained a great variety of counts, charg-
ing the defendant with not making a proper signal, with
not heaving-to, with refusing to take a pilot on board, and
other descriptions of the same offence ; and the defendant
pleaded sixteen special pleas, putting all the counts of the
declaration in issue, affirming that he had tried to obtain a
pilot, but could not. The real question in issue was whe-
ther, upon the 20th of December, 1833, the defendant was
or was not passing Dungeness in his ship called the Light-
ning, and did or did not then refuse to take on board a pro-
perly licensed pilot.
Lor DENMAN left the case to the Jury, who returned a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

DRAMATIC AUTHORS AND MANAGERS.-JERROLD V. MOB;

HIS AND WINSTON.

- -..
This was an action brought for the. recovery of compen-
sation for a dramatic piece, written by the plaintiff, and
represented at the theatre of the defendants.
The proceedings excited very great interest, and the
Court was literally crowded by authors and actors.
Mr. ANDREWS opened the pleadings. The action was
brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants a
sum of 1501., which he alleged to be the value of a dramatic
piece which had been played at the theatre of the defen-
dants ; and to this demand the defendants had pleaded that
they had paid the plaintiff 501., and that 50/. was an ade-
quatd remuneration for the plaintiff's trouble.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said, the piece to recover com-
pensation for which this action had been brought, was called
Beau Nash ;or the King of Bath. This play was not the
production of an unknown or unsuccessful dramatist ; it
proceeded from the pen of the author of The Rent Day—
The Housekeeper—and many other plays, which had, and
most deservedly, become established favourites with the
public. For The Housekeeper, which was a work of infe-
rior merit to that which formed the foundation of these
proceedings, Mr. Jerrold received from the defendants-
-1001., although it only contained two acts ; and he there
fore had a right to expect to be remunerated according to
the same scale for Beau Nash, which was a three act piece.
Beau Nash was first represented on the 16th of July, 1834,
and the principal part of it, namely, the hero of the piece,
was personated by one of the most delightful actors of the
present time, Mr. William Farren. It was as successful
as its author could desire it to be. He denied the right of
a manager to determine the value of a work of this kind,
and when he stated that the piece called Nell Gwynne,
produced to Mr. Jerrold from Covent-garden Theatre,
where it was brought out, 2001., he thought he (Mr. Ser-
geant Talfourd) had fully established Mr. Jerrold's right
to the fair and reasonable compensation to.which his genius
and talent entitled him for the present work. The scale
with respect to a five-act tragedy or comedy was perfectly
well understood. For such productions 100/. was paid on
the third representation, another 1001. on the sixth, and
a third 1001. on the ninth ; and, in some few instances, the
20th representation entitled the author to a fourth 1001.
Lord Byron, when connected with Drury-lane Theatre,
caused the whole of these sums to be paid to the late Mr.
Coleridge on the production of that splendid specimen of
his genius, the play of Remorse ; and the admirable talents
of a lady who adorned the neighbourhood of Reading
(Miss Mitford) received the same sort of tribute. The
Learned Gentleman concluded by saying he had no doubt
that a verdict would be given for the full amount claimed
by his client, and calling
Mr. B. Webster, whose evidence was as follows :—I
am an actor, and performed at the Haymarket Theatre
during the season of 1834. I recollect that during that
season—on, I believe, the 16th of July—a piece called
Beau Nash was brought out and played with one exception,
on thirteen successive nights ; it certainly was favourably
received. I write for the stage myself occasionally. In
my opinion, udging of course from the applause it received,
Beau Nash was a successful piece. Six night's represen-
tation does not establish the decided success of a play, but
I think nine or ten nights does ; there are, however, va-
rious opinions on this point. I have played at Madame
Vestris's Theatre.

Mr. Sergeant TALrouan—What does Madame Vestris
consider to be a successful piece?

Mr. Sergeant AcHERLEY (interrupting)—What have
we to do with Madame Vestris's opinion of a piece
Surely we are not to take her opinion on such a matter.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—That is a very ungallant ob-
servation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY—I played
the part of Jack Baxter in Beau Nash ; that was a prin-
cipal part, though not the principal part. The principal
part was played by Mr. Farren. When a new piece is
brought out it is customary to give the author orders to
distribute among his friends, who, perhaps, exhibit as much
partisanship—that is, are as much disposed to applaud—as
those who pay their money at the doors.—(A laugh.) I
have my doubts whether the friends of an author go to be
pleased, or are pleased when they go.—(A laugh.) The
only means an actor has of judging of the success of a
piece is by the applause. A dance was introduced at the
end of the second act, but I do not think that dance was
the salvation of the play. It was not the most popular
part of it. The dance went off amazingly well, as did other
parts of the piece.
Mr. Stephen Price, examined by Mr. Sergeant TAL-
FOURD—I am proprietor of the two principal of the Ame-
rican theatres, and was Lessee of Drury-lane Theatre from
1826 to 1830. During that period I had frequent dealings
with dramatic authors for various pieces. The scale of re-
muneration depends partly on contract and partly on
custom, but more generally on custom, more especially
among the better dramatic authors. When I first took the
theatre I found that a scale of remuneration had been gra-
duated, and that both the great theatres had acted on it. I
also adopted it. I know Mr. Jerrold. He is an author of
high reputation and great merit. He is the author of the
Rent Day, a piece of infinite merit.
Mr. Sergeant ACIIERLEY thought such evidence was in-
admissable.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—It is impossible, without some
evidence of the sort, to estimate the value of a literary pro-
duction ; you cannot estimate it as you would the skill of a
carpenter. The Learned Judge then asked the witness
whether he knew Mr. Jerrold, and the merits of his works ?
Mr. Price—l do, my Lord.
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY submitted that the value of a
literary production was to be determined in the same way
as that of a picture.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—Did you see or read this play,
and what is your opinion of its merits. Is it a good or a
bad piece for the stage ?

Mr. Price—l read it, but I did not see it. It is de-
cidedly a work of merit, and quite original. I should sup-
pose it to be a piece, especially placed in the hands it was,
which would form a safe speculation for a manager.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—If a piece does not reach a third
representation does the author get anything?
Mr. Price—No, my Lord.
Mr. Charles Morton, examined by Mr. Sergeant TAI.-
FOUED—I am a dramatic author. Speed the Plough 18
mine, and I have written many other dramatic pieces. I
have written pieces for both the winter theatres, but only
one for Mr. Morris, namely, Separation and Reparation,
but the remuneration did not depend on the nights it was
played. I received 160/. for it. It contained only two
acts. lam acquainted with Mr Jerrold's work, and con-
sider him a very successful dramatist.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I suppose an author being well
known brings more persons to a theatre, where his produc-
tion is performed, than would otherwise go there ?
Mr. Morton—l believe that to be the case. I consider
nine nights to be a test of the success of a five-act piece,
and six of a shorter one.

The CHIEF JUSTlCE—Perhaps the author and actor
may think differently on that point ?—(A laugh.)
Mr. Morton admitted that, and continued. Formerly
authors were paid by the result of the sixth night's per-
formance, a species of benefit, but that practice has long
ceased. I have myself " stood upon my nights." Cer-
tainly I think that 501. is an inadequate remuneration for
a three act piece ; but I agree that 50/. for the third, sixth,
and ninth representation, would be fair and reasonable.
Mr. J. R. Planche, examined by Mr. ANDREWS—I am
the author of several dramatic works, and several of them
were brought out at the Haymarket Theatre. They were
never more than two acts, and I received 1001. for each.
witnessed the representation of Beau Nash, and thought it
very successful. The sum demanded is, in my opinion, no
more than the fair remuneration.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY-I have
the honour to be a member of the Dramatic Author's So-
ciety. That society was established for the purpose of pre-
serving the rights of authors. It is a sort of Conservative
club—(A laugh)—and has existed about two years. Its
object is to protect " the most tiresome and laborious of all
mental exertions, against the destructive tyranny of
_mana-
gers." For the The Sledge Driver I received 501., as
lawyers say, on account of my wife ; it was not written by
me. This was by agreement. Ido not know what sums
were paid for the pieces of Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr.
Buckstone, nor what Mr. Boaden received for The Duel.
Here the plaintiff's case closed.
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY then addressed the Jury on be-
half of the defendants.

Mr. Frederick Vining examined by Mr Jervis—l was
stage-manager at the Haymarket during the season of 1834.
When Mr. Jerrold's play was first read, it was considered
too long, and that it would act heavily ; and after one or
two rehearsals Mr. Farren said that unless the third act
was altered its success would be defeated. Mr. Jerrold,
approving of Mr. Farren's suggestion, made the necessary
alterations. But I have heard that Mr. Farren declared
he would not act in it, if that act was not altered, because

the part assigned to him was one of difficulty and labour.
The play, though it passed off with applause--without dis-
appointment—still went off "flatly." The impression gene-
rally of the actors was, that the second act went off flatly,
and that if the dance did not succeed, it must be damned.
The dance was received with acclamation ; but it was in-
cidental to the piece, though arranged by the performers,
and not by the author. The house, though not crowded,
was good on the first night. It invariably happens that a
new piece gees off more flatly on the second than any other
night. Cannot say whether the house was better attended
the night Hamlet was played than on the night Beau Nash
was. No doubt the reason Mr. Jerrold's play was with-
drawn was because the. manager did not find it attractive.
Mr. William Farren examined by Mr. JERVIS—I had a
part in Beau Nash, and was of course present when it was
read and rehearsed. It was neither a lively or dull piece.
I do not recollect having said it was as " dull as ditch-
water," but if I thought so, I would have so expressed my-
self. To a certain extent the piece was attractive. lam
unable to set any value upon it. Though it appeared to be
heavy, I thought it clever.

Mr. Pritchard examined by Mr. Jaavis—l ant deputy
treasurer at the Haymarket theatre ; the average expense
of each night's performance is 100/. ; the receipts during
the thirteen nights Beau Nash was performed were as fol-
lows :—The first night, 811. I Is. ; the second, 801. 12s. ;
the third and fourth, 2201. 14s. ; the fifth, 105/. 12s. ; the
sixth, 84/. Is. ; the seventh, 80/. 6s. ; the eighth, 76/. ss. ;
the ninth, 901. 19s. ; the tenth, 831. 16s. ; the eleventh,
971. 16s. ; the twelfth, 85/. 9s. ; and the thirteenth, .53/.lls.
The night Hamlet was played the receipts amounted to
122/. 16s. The management lost money on the nights
Beau Nash was performed.
The Jury, after consulting for a few minutes in the box,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 100/., ob-
serving that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount (150/.)
he had demanded.