The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-10 00:00:00

production of Weber's opera, merely to oblige Mr. Sinclair.
--As to the letter written by Mr. Fawcett, it was
merely a friendly communication. Mr. Fawcett
had no authority to alter the terms of the engagement made
by the plaintiff with the proprietors, and only wrote in a
friendly manner to the plaintiff, to tell him,that his pre-
sence was looked for early. The best, proof, however,
that Mr. Sinclair himself felt that he had abandoned his
original engagement was, that he had expressly declared so,
and expressed his regret at the oversight he had made in
not being in town to fulfil his engagement. In a cianumni-
cation with Mr. Kemble soon after Mr. S. arrived in town, he
expressed his regret in very earnest terms, and Mr. K. said,
Well,we can't give you an engagement for 50miglits, but we
shall employ you as often as we can during the season."—
Mr. Sinclair acceded to this new engagement, and became
one of the Company for the season. The " Cabinet" was
revived, and the " Hebrew Family" produced on purpose
to bring out Mr. Sinclair, but. neither of these pieces
had taken, and, in consequence, Mr. Sinclair was
only employed nine nights,• for which he was paid.
—lt was under the new engagement that Mr.
Kemble thought proper to refuse to allow Mr. Sinclair to
accept the engagement which Dr. Kitchener proposed he
should enter into with Mr. Arnold, the proprietor of the
Lyceum. By the new arrangement with Mr. Kemble,
Mr. Sinclair bound himself to the Theatre for the
season, but 'no particular number of nights was speci-
fied. In May lie found his engagement was not pro-
fitable, and wrote to Mr. Fawcett, requesting that his
benefit should be fixed . for as early a night as pos-
sible, and that the night of his benefit should be the
last of his performance for the season. This letter was a
demonstration that Mr. Sinclair knew that his engagement
for fifty nights was abandoned, the at this period lie had
only performed nine nights, and the season was yet two
months from its termination. The fact was, that from
the production of various pieces in which Mr. Sinclair
did not perform, especially " The Woman never Vext"
and " Der Frieeclitte," as well as from the appearance
of Mies Foote, who was at that period, from peculiar cir-
cumstances, a very popular actress, the Proprietors could
not have employed Mr. Sinclair oftener without a decided
loss. They therefore granted his request, and let him have
his benefit on the 25th of May, before the town emptied.
This arrangement was made to oblige and serve him, and
after his benefit -. night he did not perform. Under all
,
the circumstances, he insisted that not a doubt remained
that a :mutual understanding existed , that the original
engagement was dissolved, and it• was admitted that under
the new, arrangement, Mr. Sinclair's claim had been fully
satisfied. • Under those circumstances, for the Jury to
constitute themselves jndges, and decide whether Mr, Sin-
clair had been employed
,a sufficient number of nights,
would be ridiculous. It was hard to divest one's self of a
prejudice in favour of a popular performer, but it was for
the jury to decide upon this case exactly as they would on
any other case, and in law and justice lie submitted they
were bound to find for the defendants.
Mr. John Fawcett said, I was Stage Manager of Covent-
garden Theatre in the years 1821-5. I wrote to Mr.
Sinclair on the 21st September, without the knowledge or
privity of the defendants. It is not the practice to apprise
performers that their engagement" are about to commence.
I had no authority to write to Mr. Sinclair on the subject.
I believe Mr. Sinclair arrived in London about the middle
of October. I know that lie was not in town ae the open-
ing of the Theatre. Dec Freischutz was ,in preparation
from the opening of the Theatre. It was produced
on the 14th October and. was performed fifty-three
nights. I did not see Mr. Sinclair nor hear
of bins for some time after.• When I saw hire, :I said,
" You thave come too late .for your engagement ;"
and his reply was, "It is of no consequence, for the mu-
sic of Der Freischutz would not suit me." On the sth
May I received a letter from Mr. Sinclair, asking me to fix
his benefit, and hoping it would be the last night of his
performance for the season. Mr. Sinclair's benefit took
place on the 25th May, and he did not perform afterwards
for the theatre, which did not close until the middle of
July. Der Freischutz -was' in the run when Mr. Sin-
clair first appeared on the 15th of December, but
the Proprietors were 'anxious to try his strength,
and produced the " Cabinet." The receipts of the theater
that night only amounted to 173/. 7s. The next night
" Freischutz" was produced .for the 27th time, and the re-
ceipts of the theatre amounted to 357/. Under those cir-
cumstances Mr. Sinclair could not have been employed
oftener than he was, without a considerable loss to the theatre.
Cross-examined.--The letter I wrote to Mr. Sinclair
when lie was in Edinburgh; Was. merely an act of civility.
When Mr. Sinclair was employed the preceeding year, he
wait not called upon to play until the middle of
.›.Tket-enebee., Mr. Pearmean, acted •at the. Opera
lionsie in " Freischutz," arid was successful, though he
playe(
,1; afUr Mr. Braham. which was frightful odds ; but
It was noi' the same version that was played at Covent
Garden and the English Opera House. The Covent Gar-
den version was founded on Weber's music, but was greatly
altered. The part was not given to Mr. Pearman until
Mr. Sinclair wrote to say that he could not come to town
until the 15th October. 1 knew he would require at
least a week to study it, and that if we depended on
him, the 'Opera ou which the Theatre principally
depended, would be put off until the end of October,
Itherefore directed the,. music to be given to Mr.
Pearman.
Air. Robinson, the treatmer of Covent-garden Theatre,
stated that he was present at a conversation be-
tween Mr. Sinclair and Messrs. Kemble and Forbes,
the defendants, soon after Mr. Sinclair's arrival in
town. The conversation took place in the Treasurer's
office. Mr. Kemble had sent expressly for Mr. S., and told
him, that as he had arrived in, town too late for " Der Frei-
saute," which was produusd a few nights before, the Pro-
prietors didnot feel themselves bound to the engagement forso
nights ; but that, if Mr. Sinclair liked, they would em-
ploy him as often as possible during the season, at the sans-
nightly salary. After some reluctance, Mr. Sinclair as.o
seated to this arrangement, but regretted that he had me
come to town early enough to fulfil hia engagement. To-
wards the close of the season, Mr. Sinclair also said to wit-
ness, that lie bad only received 1801. during the season,
and that de was unfortunate in not coming to town early
enough to fulfil his engagiment.
Mr. Alexander Oliver, the Deputy Treasurer of Covent
Garden Theatre, remembered a conversation with Mr. Sin-
clair, about the period of his benefit, Mr. S. said he had
never received so little Money any season during his pro-
fessional career, and that he had been very foolish in not
coming to town in time to fulfil his engagement.
Mr. BOUGIIAN having replied,
Lord TNICCERDEN summed up, and left it to the Juty
whether they thought thnplaintiff had proved that the pro-
prietors bad excused the plaintiff from not strictly adhering to
his original engagement,. or that a second engagement was
made for a reasonable number • of nights.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
o for the defendants.
IT- wassaimmasamoriarrampugamin