The New York herald., 1869-03-06

ordered me ous or the theatre; he rendered me the
nfteen dollars Which declined ned 20 receive ne Owes Ms
York until returned, $40 30, IN addition 10 twenty
dollars salary; ! played one week In Brooklyn for
Mr.. Llngard and ne said to me there, ave are going
to Washington next week, and OF course shall pay
your expenses over and above what 1t costs you 70
1--we IN New York;" defendant paid my expenses IN
ali the cities where we performed until we reached
Boston, where the expenses claim were incurred.
TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT.
William ii. Lingard testified that he made an en-
gaeement with Tie plalntn to perform for him In
the Theatre Comique and that after the fire he con-
tinued to pay him and other actors their salaries
without exacting any performances from them; did
not agree to pay hun anything extra for travelling
EXPENSES; sulnorlzea mr.. staples 70 Sign tne dls-
ing room and was very abusive; after that refused
him admission TO the theatre.
Defendants counsel offered to produce several
other Witnesses but the Court refused further
any testimony remarking that he had got surelt OF
having are more. He hoped the theatrical profession
would lind some other means OF settling their disputes
without bringing them into court
Judgment rendered Tor plaintln-$29 80.
Ihe 0 Utility" Business Settled.
Maurice B. Pike and Melissa, his sctfs us. WGlfan
II. Ltngard.-In this case, which was reported at
length in the HERALD few days ago, Judge smith
delivered the following opinion on Thufsday;-
The importance of this cBse, far 1t may act as
precedent between theatrical managers and actors,
their respective duties, has caused delay ren.
dering judgment until should have had ample time
for consideration The action IS brought by the plain
ts against the defendant TO recover the sum OF $3.50,
alleged to be due by defendant under certain writ
ten contract, as follows:-
Mr.. MAURICE B. PIKE:-
.saa, s hereby u yo and o wife for as
business II elued, at joint salary of nry dollars per
subject to the 'alss r T. TRE 4Sp
". II. LINGARD.
BY the terms of this contract the plaintiffs were
engaged for utty and better business If required.n
The defendant having cast Mrs. Pike TO lead IN the
excaniatlons and chorus Of the operatta q Fan
time declined to attend the rehearsals assign
ing as reason that the character sne was cast Tor
was below the grade or line OF business she was
engaged to DO at the time Of the making OF
the contract, 1t must be assumed that the plantfs
had knowledge OF tne line OF business, consisting
formed at the Theatre COmique. and the testimony
seems to justify me IN coming to the conclusion tDat
personal dignity professional honor In doing what
the manager requested Mrs. Pike to DO IN the
that in small theatres such business Us groups,
choruses, &c Is always done by The actors without
reference to the grade OF characters they are
does not mean Irresponsible or respectable
utility" the terms being synonlmous) and the
that it is discretionary with the manager to giye
better business II so disposed. In TINS case, In my
Judgment, utility means and requires that the actor
or actress shall do and perform In all characters re-
quired by the manager, and which are not menial
degrading. With reference to what Mrs. Pike was
required 70 do In the Operetta OF "Fanchetten am
Of opinion that she mad no ground OF complaint on
the score OF either personal or professional humia-
tion. The testimony shows that other actors equally
as high In the profession as she is, and engaged as
utility and responsible utility actors have frequently
done and volunteered to do Q duty and out Of
spirit OF Kindness for the promotion Of the interests
Of the theatres where they were engaged what Mrs.
Pike refused to do.
The rules of the Theatre Comique were submitted
In evidence by the defendant but have dsregarded
them, as the evidence shows they were not seen BY
the platntis ut the time previous to the signing
Of the contract or engagement.
In conclusion must hold that Mrs. Pike, In refls-
Ing TO go the stage and perform the part assigned
her by the manager vitated the agreement and that
IL remained Opuonal with the defendant to termi-
nate the engagement which he chose to do. Iudg-
ment is therefore, rendered In favor OF the defend
ant, with ten dollars costs.