The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-12-08
SUPERIOR COURT.

GENERAL TERM.--The judges sat in general
term and nd heard an argument in the case Of "
IN By sSd M gs
The THEATHIcAI OAsE-T A. Morton vs.. John
Bates. mrs Ware made the closing argument for the
such CASES were not common. 1t was true they were
not-that the tyranny Of theatrical managers who
amassed colossal fortunes through the nightly
brought often to eht-and Re therefore, the more
admired the pluck Of plaintiff who, when brought
@ nnder the crushing oppression of this National
Theater mad the courage, poor as he 10, and friend
less as he was when he came to this city, to take this
defendant by the throat and bring him into Court,
Counsel then proceeded to contend that the testi.
mony had established that MIR. Morton had dis
charged AL the duties incumbent upon him faith
claimed that he could not support such actors as
Mrs Farren or Mrs. Julia Dean Hayne. Whai does
all alt this s mean His appearance was good; he was
words of Hamlet as a test. He had both discretion
parts in the regular and legitimate drama. At any
rate the defendant failed to show that he in the
siightest degree imperfect in any play put on that
made TO him was in the 'Uuequal atch, in which he
admits he was little shaky-and why? The part as
signed to him was manuscript piece, in which he
hau to study seven hundred and seventy lines
In twenty -four hours. Mr.. Barras had seen him
Once but did not remember the piece part he took
That witness said he noticed shambled gait; yet
observed it so that perhaps the character required
something that sort, because they we're not sup
Ware) regarded the whole testimony Of Mr.. Barrss
as utterly worthless he did not believe it could
commend itself to tho Courtfor the reason that the
witness was merely on exhibition, not to give his
opinion as straightforward man ought to have
done, but simply to make the audience laugh. What
sort OF testimony was this when were struggling
for their rights in court of JUSTICE where It was
expected the truth would he spoken without varnsh?
Y was worth nothing. and, aside from the statement
that the plaintiff shambled in his gait it contained
nothing
The course adopted towards him during the latter
part OF his connection with the National Theater
showed that occasions were sought to entrap him,
ground Of action. But MIR. Fox had asked What
could be the motive for NIL this II he were able to full
fll his position as leading man. The reason was
this plaintiff was losing it for him.
MIR. Fox-Mr. Bates tells you he made efforts to get
another in his place.
now running his Theater along ior two months and
ashalf without leading man. 1t became necessary
that he should reduce his expenses, and he does So
by discharglng his leading actor. He found he could
not discharge him ON the general ground of incom
potency, and he resorts to the claim OF Mr.. Morton
having refused to play, a part assigned hini-which
10 faet no DID not refuse, but which he would be
Justified In refusing-the part OF Guy Broadbrook'
n tho PIONEER PATRIOT, written by the 'star,
Watkins, who, the testimony showed, was not al
good an actor as Mr.. Morton, hut who was going
them to empty benches.
Judge Storer-ls this an historical play?
MIR. Morton informed the Court that II was
piece in which negro comes on the stage and with
stick kills fifty British soldiers, all armed with
mnskets. "a laugh.l
Mr.. Ware in his concluding remarks, referred thu
TO show that this plaintiff had performed as leading
man to the. most distinguished actors in the North
South, East and West.
Judge storer intimated that he would decide tn,
case in few DAYS