Star.
London, England, 1827-10-12 00:00:00

ittIZARD V. WATSON.

This was an action to recover 5001. alleged to have
ben forfeited by the defendant, a teacher of music, in
conspquence of ahreath of agreement.
Mr. LAW opened the pleadings. It appeared that a
memorandum of agreement was entered into on the
24 ft of June, 1824, by-which the defendant covenanted
In consideration of a sum of money by him received to
teach Sophia Ed rat d, the plaintiff's daughter, the science
if music, playing on the piano forte, and the profession
•of a ringer. It was alleged that he did not teach her
mthic, and thereby forfeited 5601. the penalty of the
agreement.
Mr. Sergeant TADur said, the plaintiff was a re-
spectable tradesman. The defendant was chorus mas-
ter at Covent Garden Theatre. It was usual for pro-,
fessional Gentlemen in that situation to take pupils, and
teach them the science of music: The defendant en-I
tered into an engagement with the plaintiff to teach his
daughter Sophia singing and playing on the piano forte,
and the cortaplaint in this case was, that he had not
complied with the terms of his agreement. The de-,
findant had taught the young Lady singing, but not
music. He was instructed to say the defendant on some,
occasions had used expressions not so mesical. One day,
he said, he would be d—d if taught her the piano-1
<A laugh). The defendant had covenanted to teach bet
Music, unless prevented by theatrical engagements or
illness. It wotild appear that he was not prevented by
any such engagemeats, and that he bad only taught bet
singing. Sy the terms of the agreement, the party
committing a breach was liable to pay the sum of 5001.,
which sum the plaintiff sought to recover. The
Learned Sergeant lamented that the patties had ap- I
peered in a Court of Justice. One was a daughter, and
the other a sou of harmony, and be could hay, wished
the dispute had been arranged out of Gaurt. If any of
his Learned Friends would take the cause under their
consideration, and see how far the Lady was advanced
in playing and singing, it would be the means of ob-
taining a better settlement toad they could get in that
Court. If such a course was not adopted the cause
must go on.
The agreement between the parties was put in and read.
Miss Sophia Edtard, the plaintiff's daughter, was
then called as a witness. She said she was the daughter
of the plaintiff. In June, 1824, she commenced taking
lessons from the defendant ; she was instructed in the
pianoforte and singing. In consequence of illness in
the defendant's family, she discontinued receiving in-
structions for some time. On her tenon to the house
of the defendant, Mr. Watson ceased teaching her the
pianoforte. When she was instructed in singing, it was
in company with four or five others.. The time devoted
to teaching was short. The defendant was not prevented
from giving long lessons by theatrical engagements.--
The pupils did not sing separately, bat all together.—
His mode of expression was not very harmonious; he
often swore and alarmed the witness. She was obliged
to absent herself in the spring of last year in conse-
quence of illness. During the last twenty months the
defendant did not teach her the pianoforte. After being
with him two years and a half, be pat her back to
Cromer', Imstrosotion Boot.

The LORD CHIRV Jurrges here observed, that the
contract between the parties could not go on., and sup
gested that some person might be referred to, for the
purpose of a better settlement than they could obtain by
trying the action.
Mr. Sergeant Wicott said, the object of the Lady ,
was to get rid of the agreement. There was ground t.
believe that her proficiency was concealed for that'
purpose. He reminded the Lord Chief Justice of the
pros erb-- . . _