Star.
London, England, 1824-04-16 00:00:00

MORRIS AND ANOTHER D. PATON.

This was an action for the breach of an agreement
entered into by the defendant with the plaintiffs, the
proprietors of the Haymarket Theatre. Mr. Paton was
the father of the actress of that name, and the agree-
ment in question was entered into by him, on behalf of
the young Lady, she being a minor, and therefore not
capable of judging for herself.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case. The defendant's daughter,
he said, who was no doubt known to all the Jury, was
first brought forward by the plaintiffs at their Theatre,
in 1822, at which time they acted towards her with the
greatest liberality ; for before she had performed at all,
and when it could not be known whether she would be
successful or not, they agreed to give her £8 a-week
for the season ; and Mr. Paton afterwards agreed that
his daughter should enter into an engagement for three
succeeding seasons, at 91. 101. and 111. per week, and
an agreement was to be signed to that effect before the
season of 1822 expited. Frequent applications were
made to him to execute his agreement, but he invariably
evaded doing so; still, however, she commenced the
season of 1823, at a salary of 101. and continued to
play occasionally till the latter end of August, at which
time she refused to play any more, alleging that her
health was so bad she must have rest to recruit her
strength. Accordingly, on the Ist of September, she
withdrew herself from the Theatre entirely, and that at
a time when her services were most material to the con-
cern : in consequence of her doing so, the plaintiffs were
subjected to very great loss. She withdrew herself on
the Ist of September, on pretence of ill health ; on the
2d she left London; on the .sth she sang in public at
Manchester; on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th at Ezeter ;
on the 20th at Manchester ; again on the 24th at Glas-
gow; and on the 29th and following week at Edin-
burgh. And in this manner it was that this young Lady
retired to recruit her health by rest. To recover a com-
pensation for the loss which the plaintiffs had sustained
by defendant's breach of agreement, the present ac-
tion was brought.
Mr. Edward Pritchard. the Treasurer of the Hay-
market Theatre, produced the agreement signed by
the defendant. Miss Paton continued to act in the sea-
son of 1823, till the beginning of September ; the wit-
ness paid her salary to Mr. Patoni eight pounds a-week,
for 1822, and ten pounds for that part of 1823 in which
she played. After she teased to play the receipts of the
house evidently fell off.
Cross-examined.—Witness did not know that Miss
Paton refused to sign articles in 1823 for eleven weeks,
nor when she came of age.—(The contract was t' en rut
in and read). It commenced--;-" I consent that my
daughter shall," &c.
—Well, Mr. Gurney, and
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
have you proved that Miss Paton did agree?
Mr. SCARLET-T.—MIS, as I think, is the first time
such an action as this was ever brought. I never heard
of an action having been brought against a father who
had consented to his daughter's marriage, because the
daughter afterwards refused to marry.
Mr. GURNEY contended that the word "consent"
must here be taken to mean agree." The Learned'
Counsel then put in a letter of Mr. Paton to Mr. Morris,
in which that Gentleman stated that his daughter would
not 'ratify the agreement, but, to prevent disappoint-
ment, would perform for, a certain number of %seeks.
The letter also contained semi observations as to the
conduct of the managers in the preceding season, in
having called on- I‘liss Paton to appear so frequently

before the Public, to the evident injury of her health.
It also stipulated that the Lady should have a veto as to
the Gentleman with whom she was to he called on to
perform. A letter was also pet in from Miss Paton, in
which she stated that k WAS useless to apprise her of re-
-1 tarsals, as it was not her intention to pet form any m re.
The LORD JusTlce, upon this evidence, de-
clared his opinion, that this was nut a contract binding
Mr. Paton, or rendering bias liable in this action; it was
not an agreement that his daughter should perform—
it was only a consent that she should do so, if she
thought tit.—Plaintiff nonsuited.

BII•NT V. ROBINSON'.

This was an action by a silkman, against the defen-
dant, for giving a false character for reedit to a person
named Gillingham, whereby the plaintiff was ithlticed
to cledit the latter with goods to the amount of 3701.
and he having turned out to be insolvent at the time,
the plaintiff sustained damage to that amount.
The case was cleatly made out, and the Jury found
for the plaintiff—Damages 3701.