The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 12, 1859,

to see, under this English constitution of ours, that
' a man who has TiSen from the ranks—who is proud
to tell us that he once worked in a mill=has been
elected to the honour of representing the first con•
stituency in England, or the world ? (Hear, hear.)
This is by far the most important victory that has
been gained for Reform in the West Riding for
more than twenty years. We have had two Tories
representing us; at another time a Tory and a
Liberal; and at another time we have had two
Liberals returned by a small majority; but it is
twenty-three years since we had such a great vic-
tory, or two such decided reformers as we have
gained to-day. (Hear.) I trust that Lord Derby
will now perceive that the people are determined
to have an efficient measure of reform, and that the
electors of this constituency will not allow him to
parcel iis out and otherwise deal with us as he pro-
posed. I hope this constituency has now given the
deathblow to all sham reforms, and a deathblow to
the Government. (Hear.)
One or two other brief congratulatory addresses
were delivered, and loud cheers were given for
several of the most active supporters of Messrs.
Ramsden and Crossley.
Halifax was in a state of intense excitement all
day. Many of the mills were standing, and thou-
sands of people from the surrounding neighbour-
hood were in the town. Here Mr. Crossley was at
the head of the poll all day ; but Sir John Rams-
den was only a little behind him. As soon as it
became known that the Liberal candidates had
been both returned, the enthusiasm of the crowds
around their committee rooms seemed to know no
bounds. Mr. Crossley arrived at Halifax in the
evening. He was met in the station by a large
concourse of people, who gave him a most enthu-
siastic welcome, and accompanied him in procession
to the Manufacturers' Piece-hall, preceded by a
band of music. By this time there could not have
been fewer than from 15,000 to 20,000 persons pre-
sent. Addresses were delivered by the successful
candidate and several of his leading supporters,
after which Mr. Crossley was escorted to his resi-
dence at Belle Vue, the crowds of people who lined li
the streets lustily Cheering the bon. gentleman at
various, points of the route.

At Sheffield the contest excited very great inte-
rest. Alderman Dunn, the chairman of the Liberal
committee, in an address at the close of the poll,
attributed the Liberal majority in the Sheffield dis-
trict mainly to the support of the small freeholders.
The Conservatives attribute their defeat to a
conjunction of unfortunate circumstances—firstly,
the almost entire neglect of the register by the
Conservatives for several years ; secondly, to the
Liberal candidates being the first in the field; and
thirdly, to the much greater energy, zeal, and acti-
vity shown by the Liberals in seeking out all voters
of a doubtful or neutral character.

The contest has been a very costly one, probably
not less than from £15,000 to £20,000 being spent
on each side.

It is creditable to all parties that the election has
been conducted in a very respectable manner. From
the quietness which prevailed yesterday in all the
towns in the riding, no one would have supposed
that a great and exciting political battle had been
fought in the same towns only a few hours before.

LAW INTELLIGENCE:—May 11

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
GYE V. GRAZIANI AND SMITH.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
The Vice-Chanellor said he was of opinion that
Mr. Gye was entitled to an injunction, he under.
taking, in case the court should be of opinion at the
hearing that the defendant was entitled to insist
upon a modification of the contract in clauses 4 and
11, to consent to such modification. The onus was
no doubt thrown to a great extent upon both de-
fendants to show a cause which would justify them,
on the face of the contract with Gye, in entering
upon a new and inconsistent contract—a contract
Plainly and avowedly contemplating legal pro-
ceedings, as was shown by the indemnity given to
Graziani. Any person signing such a contract
without fairly acquainting the person with whom
he had previously treated of it could only expect
that his conduct would be scrutinised with the ut-
most rigour. Such a person could not complain if
he was subjected to considerable inconvenience, nor
could he make so much of the plea of delay as one
who acted more fairly. Before the first contract
could be got over he had a full expectation that it
would have to be brought before a court
of justice. With regard to the objection of
delay, when was the first point urged against
the plaintiff, his Honour considered that until
the 10th of March no ground existed for filing a bill,
and the bill was in point of fact filed on the 18th
of :April. The engagement, so far as that court
could enforce it, was of a negative character only,
and it formed, therefore, no part of Mr. Gye's duty
to file his bill on the first rumour of the defendant
being about to break it. Until the 10th of March
there had been no distinct intimation by Graziani
that he was about to break his engagement. On
that day a letter from Paris was inserted in the
Morning Post, and the plaintiff then saw for the
first time a distinct statement that the defendant
was engaged at Drury-lane. On the 21st of March,
Mr. Gye wrote to Mr. Smith making a very fair
and reasonable proposal, viz., to submit their claims
to arbitration. On the delay between the 22d of
March and the 18th of April, some comment might
arise, but looking at the difficulty in such a case of
gettiinngmeina the conduct evidence actoPariuestof Graziani and elsewhere, and
himself,
bear-
inghself
his Honour could not say that the delay ought not
to prejudice the plaintiff. With regard to the
merits of the case, it was quite clear that Mr. Gye
was entitled to some relief upon the contract. If
the matter turned only upon there being a stipula-
tion that the £l6O should be paid before the end
of September, as asserted by Graziani, the balance
of testimony would be in his favour. It was to be
observed that the creditor was likely to have the
better memory upon the point. The letters written
in September showed great anxiety on the part of
the defendant as to his re-engageme.it, but they
made no mention of the £l6O. No doubt it might
be said that the time for payment not having then
expired, Graziani would be unwilling at such a
moment to dun Mr. Gye. The agreement for 1859
was drawn up in consequence of Graziani's repeated
requests as to his engagement. These engagements
were usually settled early in the autumn, and by
formal instruments. His Honour considered that
there was no fraud whatever in Harris propounding
the agreement in the form he did to the defendant.
It was clear that Graziani looked at the written
terms contained in the contract, for he men-
tioned his objections to some of the clauses. Harris
wrote to plaintiff on these objections,•and received
his instructions as to the renewal. There were two
or three interviews before the agreement was signed,
and when it was signed it seemed that nothing was
said about the £l6O. The evidence even of Bruzzi
went to show that nothing like a condition prece-
dent that the £l6O was paid was made a stipula-
tion on the signing of the agreement. In Lumley
v. Wagner such a condition was actually inserted
in the contract, and payment stipulated for by way
of earnest. But the £l6O was an old debt, arising
out of a former contract, upon which Graziani
might have sued the plaintiff at any moment. In
truth, this making of the £l6O a stipulation by way
of condition precedent was entirely an afterthought.
In the letter of the 3d Dec. not a word was said by
Graziani as to the promise by Harris to pay the
£l6O. And again, when Graziani attacked Harris
in Paris as to the manner in which he had been led
to sign the agreement, he never said a word about
the non-payment of the £l6O. His complaints were
upon a wholly different ground. It might be as
Bruzzi said—at one of the interviews in reference
to the contract Graziani mentioned his debt, and
very likely Harris said it should be sent him; but
Harris was not the money agent of Gye, and even
if he were, the doctrine of that court would not
allow a contract to be set aside upon the failure of
money considerations. It was to be regretted that
the plaintiff had not paid more attention to the
pressing letters which Graziana wrote for payment
of the £l6O. There might have been reasons for
this, but whatever these were Mr. Gye's conduct
was not justifiable on that account. As early as
ia.Otgewetn.a,tsslBp:rnoBp,e
iotthsheeedrre
st
iohd aehd.
msbmeienintt,esc. negotiations as to the
engagement of Graziani by Smith between the
of-
fered Graziani. An taffidavit
hathe
e stated
should that
en-
gage
~I.tindadoTt
jioanna.l4.£6Boe
eanmo.aognetmh
ewnatswoafs-
sign ed. Then it was that Grazianifirsecontemplated
availing himself of this paltry excuse as to the £l6O
in order to accept the extra salary. It did not appear
from Smith's affidavit when he first heard of the
engagement with Gye. He must, however, have
been aware of some engagement for Graziani re•
quired an indemnity.. The indemnity was sent on
the 6th January., He must say that he could not
g-ive Mr. Smith credit for candour towards Mr.
aye, whose interests he was endeavouring
,iethomtdhaanamtaagger
of h
by withholding a performer,principalanepriaiin ntw when after
doiwngaatliwtahs done.ishe Theinformed the n
m
in-
demnity had been withheld from the kinneopnwitil.vediLlgeogeoekod.f
eMemr.nGvaynei,eaotniotuh,ewgarsouopnednththatmiutehweaesma
ing at the reliance necessarily placed on the oath
of a defendant as to what were privileged commu•
nications, that protection ought never to be claimed
until those who claimed it had satisfied themselves
of the justice of the claim. His Honour imputed
nothing in this matter to m. Graziani, who, as a
foreign gentleman, must necessarily be in the hands
of his advisers on such a matter. It was true
it was a letter from Graziani's solicitor to him,
but then it contained the indemnity, and was such
a document as could not be protected. Those who

attempted to screen such a document by the oath of
the defendant rendered themselves open to strong
observations. With reference to the plaintiff ten-
dering the money to Graziani in Paris much com-
ment had been raised. But the course taken ap-
peared to his Honour a natural one. It would be
strange indeed if a man threatened with litigation
might not see his adversary with a view to staying
that litigation. The conduct of Harris, too, ap-
peared perfectly natural; and there was nothing in
the case to throw any discredit upon him. With
respect to the interview in Paris, if Graziani had
gone in the high tone of indignation which had
been suggested, would he not have openly avowed
his agreement with Smith, but on his own admis-
sion this was not the course he took. He talked of
a treaty after the engagement had been actually
signed. Looking;-therefore, to the whole of the
matter, his Honour came to the conclusion that he
ought not to refuse to interfere in this case. The
order, therefore, would be to restrain the defen- ,
dant (Graziani) from singing at any opera or con-
cert in London other than at the Royal Italian
Opera, Covent garden (except private and gratis
concerts), without the written permission of the
plaintiff', and particularly from singing at the
Theatre Royal, Drury-lane, and restrain the de-
fendant Smith from permitting Graziani to sing at
Drury-lane Theatre or elsewhere in London.