The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.---(THIS .DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
JUDGMENT -BERNARD V. MINSRALL.

Mrs. Bernard, by her will, left her property real and
personal, with a power of appointment to:the plaintiff, her
husband, Mr. Thomas Bernard, absolutely. And as to a
sum of £13,000, with the exception of £2,000 to himself,
she directed him, after applying the interest or annual
rents of the residue of this sum to his own use, by his will
to dispose of the remainder, " according to her wishes often
expressed to him in words."

The plaintiff did not recollect any wishes expressed to
him by his wife as to the disposal of this money, and claimed
the whole as his absolute property, The defendants, as
next of kin, claimed it as intestacy.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor said he was precluded
from judging in this case by the decisions of the Court.
He was, however, of opinion that there was no intestacy,
and that the husband, Mr. Bernard, was entitled to take
the £13,000 in question as his absolute property, in addition
to the real and personal estate devised to him by his wife's
will, and decreed accordingly. Costs of the special case to
be allowed to all parties.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Sir W, P. Wood.)
OTT V. GItAZIANI AND SMITit..—TRE RIVAL ITALIAN

OPERAS.

The hearing of this motion for an interim injunction,
made by Mr. Gye, of the Royal Italian Opera, Covent
.Garden, to prevent Signor Graziani singing at Drury-lane
Theatre, was resumed this morning.
Mr. Daniel, Q.C., on behalf of Signor Graziani, said the
position of the case stood exactly as it did on the 6th
of January, and had not been in the slightest degree varied
by what had taken place. His learned friend (Mr. Rob-)
had argued that he would be entitled to the injunction, if
he succeeded in establishing to the satisfaction of the Court
that there was a question to be tried of the hearing of the
cause ; but he contended he would have something more to
establish. The present was a case in which the plaintiff
ought to be called upon to show why he did not invoke the
aid of the Courtin January last, instead of waiting until the
present moment. The plaintiff, no doubt, had excellent reasons
operating on his mind which induced him to delay this
application. It had been said on the other side, as some
justification for the course they had Adopted, that they had
not had time to cross• examine Mr. E. T. Smith, one of the
defendants ; but he had tendered Mr. Smith on Monday,
and he had offered that this motion should be taken with
all its informalities on the hearing of the cause. That pro-
position was rejected, and the plaintiff preferred having the
motion dealt with as an interlocutory motion. In this
form it would have precisely the same effect as in the
Lumley and Wagner case; for, although the application
was only interlocutory, the injunction, if granted, would
be to all intents and purposes a final decision.
He had, under those circumstances, given the plain-
tiff an opportunity of having the case tried in the form
of a hearing, and that proposition at once cat away from
him all ground of complaint. The injunction now asked
for against Graziani was that he might be restrained by the
order and injunction of this honourable court from violating
or committing any breach of his agreement with the plain-
tiff; that the defendant (Francisco Graziani) might, in like
mariner, be restrained from singing at any theatre or con-
cert in the kingdom of Great Britain, out of the Royal
Italian Opera, during the year 1859, without the written
permission of the plaintiff, save and except at private and
gratis concerts, and, in particular, that he might be re-
strained from singing at the Theatre-Royal, Drury-lane,
during the year 1859, without such written consent
as aforesaid. As far as Mr. Smith was concerned, the
motion was to prevent him from inducing Signor Graziani
to sing at his theatre. Now, from the nature of the
injunction he contended that it was not enough fir
the plaintiff to say there was a question to try at the hear-
ing of the cause, because that would be an injustice to the
defendant. The Court must, therefore, see whether there was
a question to be tried at the hearing before granting the in-
terim injunction, because if the Court granted the applica-
tion it amounted to a final settlement of the dispute between
the parties. The question he (Mr. Daniels) thought for the
Court to settle was which of the two parties would be most
injured, supposing the injunction was granted which would
preclude Graziani singing until the hearing of the cause.
Suppose plaintiff fails to show, when the cause comes on for
hearing, that there is any question? Until that period, which
might be very remote, Graziani would be prevented from
singing anywhere, without the written permission of Mr.
(lye. The Signor had been treated as .a very unimportant
member of the plaintiff's company, so it was clear he could
not suffer much injury from his not singing at Covent- ,
garden. The real object, however, was to see how far in-
jury could be inflicted upon Graziani and Mr. E. T. Smith.
Rightly or wrongly, on the 6th of January, Graziani wrote
to Gye from Paris, stating that as he had not been paid
the 4,000 francs due to him from Gye, he (Graziani)
considered himself free from all engagement to him, and
that he insisted on the propriety of not announcing his
name in the programme for the Royal Italian Opera, Covent-
Garden, 1859. It was perfectly evident that throughout the
whole transaction, Smith had acted with perfect openness
and sincerity ; that he' had no intention of concealing
his negotiations from Mr. Gye, for it was evident that by
making the matter public, and by giving up all the docu-
ments he, it was perfectly clear, considered that the con-
tract between Graziani and Smith was at an end. One of the
reasons_why Graziani had broken with Gye was, that Mr.
A, Harris had inserted a clause that Graziani should sing
at the Royal Italian Opera, Covent Garden, until the year
1861, without his properly understanding such to be the
case.
His Honour--Who is Mr. Harris ?

Mr. Daniel—The stage manager at Covent-garden—Mr. I
Gye's factotum. When Graziani's attention was called to
the engagement he had signed his Italian blood grew hot,
and he immediately went in search of Harris and met him
in a cafe, where he publicly charged Harris with having
deceived him, and as Harris himself states, publicly in-
sulted him. It was also urged that Graziani had expressly
stipulated that he would not renew his engagement with
Gye until all arrears between them were cleared up, and
it was perfectly clear that this money had not been paid
until after he had signed the contract with Mr. Smith. Of
course such a proceeding was calculated to annoy Mr. Gye,
and the result was that an ill-feeling grew up between the
parties, and when Graziani met Mr. Gye in Paris he told
he had been grossly deceived, and that he would rather
starve than sing at Covent-garden. The learned counsel
then referred to the cross-examination of Mr. Mapleson,
Mr. Smith's musical agent. He said it there appeared that
Mr. Gye so closely followed up Graziani that he even went
behind the scenes at the Opera-house in Paris, and just at
the moment when the Signor was about to go upon the
stage, and it was requisite that he should be calm and col-
lected, he selected that particular time to commence his
importunities, which threw Graziani into such a state of
confusion as to nearly ruin his professional prosperity.
T his statement was received with the greatest apparent
astonishment, and some laughter by Mr. Gye and
his friends, who occupied seats nearly opposite the
learned counsel. Reference was then made to the evidence
of the persons examine d at the Examiner's office, and the
learned counsel concluded by forcibly stating his opinion
that the Court could not grant the injunction asked for, as
it was clear that Graziani made the payment of the arrears
of salary a clear stipulation before signing the engagement
for 1859, and that not having been complied with he was at
liberty to make the best engagement he could.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

RAMSGATE COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Harwood.)
SALVAGE..--NOVEL AND IMPORTANT CASE.-BARER V

WILLIAMS.

Plaintiff, who sued by his next friend, being a minor, is
apprenticed to defendant, a mariner of Ramsgate, sought
to recover the sum of £37 4s. id, being one-seventh share
of £250 gained in a " hovellirtg matter." Mr. Buchanan,
of Basinghall-street, Lonhn, appeared for the defendant.
It appeared that on the 2d Febru%ry last, the brig
Glide was in distress in the North Sea, about 70 miles
from Ramsgate. Defendant, plaintiff, and five more
put to sea to succour the brig and succeeded
in saving her, and for so doing received £250.
Now, it was contended that, although plaintiff was an ap-
prentice to defendant, yet this was work out of the ordinary
course of a mariner's life, and that he should share the
salvage money with the rest of the boat's crew.
Mr. Buchanan, contended that plaintiff Could not re-
cover, he being only an apprentice, and as such clearly not
entitled. He could call seven witnesses, men connected
with the sea all their lives, and they would state that they
never knew a case in which an apprentice had claimed a
share in the salvage money. Sometimes a small present
was made by the master.

His Honour reserved judgment.
REDMOND V. BRADFORD-WEDDED BLISS.

This was a new trial, and the action was brought to re-
cover £2 2s. board and necessaries supplied to defendant's
wife, alleged to have been abandoned by defendant.
Mr. Buchanan said that defendant never abandoned his
wife. In fact, it was the wife who abandoned him, and
she took with her when she deserted her home some of the
furniture, which had since been returned by plaintiff.
Defendant had allowed his wife 58. per week, and was quite
willing to receive her if she would come home. He had
desired plaintiff not to harbour Mrs. Bradford, but no
notice had been paid to his request. Under these circum-
stances he did not see how plaintiff could recover after
being made acquainted with the circumstances.
His Honour gave plaintiff a verdict.

SINGULAR BIRTIIS.—On the Bth December,
1855, Mrs. Porter, wife of Mr. Richard Porter, of the
Britannia Hotel, South Shore, Blackpool, was delivered of
three male children, one of whom was still-born, another
lived two days, and the third is now a fine, healthy boy.
Singular to relate, on 'Wednesday, the 20th ult. she was
delivered of three female children, all living ;and healthy.
Both mother and children are doing as well as can be ex-
pected. They were baptised the same day by the Rev. J.
Bates, Wakfield, by the names of Emma, Jane, and
Ellen.
—.Aberdeen Iferakr.