The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron,
sand Barons Martin, Channell, and Wilde.)

➢fAY V. E. T. SMITH.-THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS.

Mr. Sergeant Shee moved for a rule to set aside
the non-suit directed by the Lord Chief Baron in
this case, which was tried before him at the last
sittings at Guildhall. He said that the plaintiff,
who was the husband of a distinguished artiste,
known in theatrical circles as Madame Bauer,
had brought his action against the defendant,
Mr. E. T. Smith, the lessee of her Majesty's
Theatre, for a breach of contract, under w hich
he undertook to accept the services of Mrs.
May, or as she was known to the public,
Madame Bauer, as prima donna. The first count
of the declaration alleged that the defendant had
engaged the plaintiffs wife to sing at her
Majesty's Theatre or at concerts when not r- •
quired there, for the season, beginning October 1,
1860, at a weekly salary of 15 guineas, and that
he would not permit her to perform as agreed to.
The second count alleged that the defendant had
engaged the plaintiff's wife to sing as prima donna
in. operas, amongst which was " Robin Hood," and
that he had failed in carrying on this agreement.
The Lord Chief Baron—The declaration stated
that the plaintiff's wife was engaged for the whole
season from October, and this action was brought
in three weeks afterwards.

Mr. Sergeant Shee said that was the case, but
the action was brought after the positive refusal of
the defendant to allow Mrs. May to play.
Mr. Baron Martin—The question, as it appears
to me, is, was there a contract to employ the plain-
tiff's wife to sing in the opera of "Robin Hood 9"
Mr. Sergeant Shee thought that was the substan-
tial question. In the communications which had
taken place between the parties, Mr. May expressed
a desire that if his wife were engaged, she should
have appropriate parts, so as to place her in a post
of honour, to which the defendant answered that
"business was business, though friendship should
be cemented," and in referring to the proposed
salary, he said he had dropped £lO,OOO, in which
half had been for repairs and decorations, but that
he had good promises of support for the future.
The defendant also said Mr. Sims Reeves was
delighted with the new opera, and that although
he had been urged to engage Madame Sherrington,
who was dying to come from Brussels, he said he
was in favour of Jenny Bauer, the plaintiff's wife.
Subsequently they entered intoacontract, by which
the defendant undertook to engage the plaintiff's
wife at a salary of 15 guineas weekly, and in reply
to the plaintiff's inquiry he put down her name in
the caste for the part of Maid Marian in " Robin
Hood." Mrs, May then went to the theatre and sung
before the composer of the opera and other friends
of the defendant, when the latter said he was de-
termined that Jenny Bauer should fill the part of
Maid Marian. Ile had, however, broken his
engagement, and thus he had injured the prospects
of the plaintiff's wife, who was anxious to appear,
even at a small salary, in an opera with Mr.
Sims Reeves which was likely to obtain the public
favour.

Their lordships granted a rule, giving the plain-
tiff leave to amend his declaration so as to raise the
issue.

Rule nisi accordingly.
WILLIAMS V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY-ACCIDENT.

Mr. Hawkins said he had to move to set aside
the verdict found for the plaintiff in this case for
£1,200 on the ground that they were excessive, and
on affidavits alleging surprise. It was an action
tried before the Lord Chief Baron, under the follow-
ing circumstances :—The plaintiff was a flour mer-
chant at Liverpool, and was passenger in an excur-
sion train on the defendants' railway on 30th May
last. The guard became intoxicated by some passen-
gers at Hitchen, and being unable to turn on the
break at the terminus at King's•cross, the engine
and train dashed through the terminus, and was
only stopped by the excavations of the Metropolitan
Railway. It was alleged that his nervous system
had been shattered, that he had lost a business
bringing in from £5OO to £6OO per annum, and
that he was unable to distinguish the colour of the
flour he bought and sold, as his sight had been so
much injured that all things appeared yellow to
him. It was, however, shown in the cross-examina-
tion that plaintiff had compounded with his credi-
tors for 7s. 6d. in the pound, and that having started
with a fresh capital, in which his books showed a
profit of £5OO in the year 1859, he had at its end
been minus much more. In this the jury had found
for him £1,200 damages.
The Lord Chief Baron—l shall certainly report
that the damages were most excessive—the largest
I ever knew in such a case.—Rule granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Jan. 15.

GUILDHALL.

Edward Gandell, of Mordien-;oad, Blackheath,
and Henry John Todd, of Park-place, Gravesend,
who carried on business under the name of " Gan-
dell and C 0.," in the city of London, were brought
up before Alderman Allen and Alderman Medd,
for further examination relative to the charge of
obtaining goods to the value of between £7,000
and £B,OOO within three months of their bank-
ruptcy, under the false colour and pretence of car-
rying on business and dealing in the ordinary
course of trade, with intent to cheat and defraud
their creditors.

Mr. Poland, instructed by Messrs. Mason and
Sturt, conducted the prosecution; Mr. George de-
fended Todd, and a clerk from the office of Messrs.
Humphreys and Morgan attended on behalf of
Gan dell.

John C. Austin, one of the usher in Mr. Com-
missioner Fane's Court, in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, said—l produce the proceedings in the
bankruptcy of Et.,l ward Gandell and Henry John
Todd, merchants and co-partners in trade. Among
them is their own petition for a private arrange-
ment, filed on the 27th July last, and the adj udica-
tion of the bankruptcy, which took place on the 3d
August. The petition was adjourned into open court.
Mr. Wm. Keighley, of the firm of Hughes and
Keighley, of 1, Crown-court, Cheapside, commission
agents, said—We are agents for Edward, Henry,
and Richard Hardmann,of Rawtanstall, near Man-
chester, worsted manufacturers. I know the bank-
rupt Gandell. He first spoke to my partner about
some goods, after which he called and saw me, and
said he would take the serges, of which he had
seen the samples, consisting
,of 22 pieces. Todd
was present at the time. I had not seen him before.
Gandell asked if I would send him in some sam-
ples of printed woollen linings. I sent in the
samples. On the 18th of July Gandell bought the
22 pieces of serge, the value of which was £125
65., and directed that they should be sent to his
warehouse at Joiners' Hall-buildings, 79, Upper
Thames-street. On the 19th July we sent 12 pieces
of printed linings with the serges, and, on the
20th, Gandell called alone at the warehouse. I was
out, but met him as he was leaving, and he said he
had just offered my partner a price for the linings,
and he would be glad of an early answer as he was
in want of the goods. He said he had offered a
four months' bill from the date of the invoice. On
the following day I went down to the warehouse
of Thomas Gandell and Co., at Joiners' Hall-build-
ings, where I saw 'Edward Gandell, and told him
his offer had been accepted for the goods. I knew of
no other firm of the name of Gandell and Co. I did
not know anything of Todd at that time. There
were 82 pieces in all of printed linings, and Gandell
asked me if it would be any convenience if he sent
their cart for them. I said it would, and on the
same day a covered cart was sent, with the name
of s' Gandell and Co., packers," on the side, and
" Thomas Gandell and Co." on the shafts. Part of
the goods were taken on the 21st, and the remainder
on the 23d July. The value of the 82 pieces of
linings was £334 12s. I did not know that I was
dealing with Todd except as a servant of Gandell,
as .the latter never told me that he had a partner,
and I did not know he was carrying on business
with Todd, either at Sise-lane or Greenwich-street,
w here the old firm of Gandell and Co. now have a
warehouse, or at Joiners' Hall-buildings. I believed
I was dealing with Gandell and Co. of the latter
place, and I have transacted all my business with
thindell there. Gandell and Co., the packers, are a
well-known firm of established credit. I did not
know that Edward Gandell was merely a salaried
clerk in that firm. I supposed him to be the head
of the firm. When I first called with Mr. Hard-
mann he was, on leaving, about to take the name
of the firm as it appeared on the door post, but
Edward Gandell immediately gave him a card bear-
ing the name of " Thomas Gandell and Co." If I
had known that Gandell was only a clerk at Xhi per
week, to his father, and in partnership with Todd,