The New York herald., 1875-09-17
"0w Boys" Drama---The Wallack-
DAILY Controversy.
Injunction Against DAILY
Dissolved.
THE PARK THEATRE TROUBLES.
Important Bankruptcy Case in the United
States Court.
The Tweed Lis Pendens Removed as to
All City Property.

few days since Judge Donohue, holding Supreme
Court, Chambers, granted aidavts Of Lester Wal
lack proprietor OF Wallacks Theatre, and Mr., William
Floyd, his stage manager, temporary injunction
restraining Mr.. Augustin Daily from producing at the
Fifth Avenue Theatre the comedy, "0ur Boys" On
the order to show why such injunction should
not be made permanent the up for argument
yesterday before Judge Donohue, Mr. A Oakley Hall
appearing for Mr., Wallack and Mr. William D. Booth
for Mr.. Daily. Both Of the theatrical rival managers
claim TO have purchased the exclusive right produce
the play here, and it having proved impossible
the matter Of their rival claims amcaby the Court was
invoked arbiter in the case Very short work was
made Of the natter the submission counter adavts
and very brief subsequent argument by Mr. Hall com
prisng the entire legal proceedings.
Mr.. DALYs AFFIDAVIT
The affidavit of Mr. Daily, which was the first read by
Mr. Booth sets forth that the oath of August
the day Of the alleged transfer OF the right Mr. Wal
lack by Mr. Thomas J. French the agent of Mr. Byron
MT French had made transfer him. giving him ex-
elusive right to perform the play in the United States
and that such agent Mr. French had forwarded the
music pictures Of the characters &C. from London to
the Fifth Avenue THEATRE that the play offered
him in March; that he gave his written acceptance on
the sst OF that month and at advertised the play
that, hearing Mr. WaIlack endeavoring to obtain
the play from Mr.. French he wrote 70 Mr.. Walack to
inform him Of his purchase and teegraphed to Mr. By
ron, in London, whose reply to the effect that he
understood the exclusive right sold the Fifth
Avenue Theatre and that manager would purchase
anything but such exclusive right
THE AFFIDAVIT OF
was next read stating that at Mr. Waacks request he
teegraphed TO Mr. DAILY out West to get the play for
Naaeks and interpreting the reply favoraby received
from Mr.. Waack a check for $500 for the play, but
when Mr. Daily returned and declined to part with
the play, he rendered the check TO Mr.. Walack who
refused to take II back
In reply Mr. Hall read a1idavits Of Mr. Wallack Mr.
Floyd and Theodore Moss treasurer of the theatre The
statements OF Mr. Wallack were essentially the
as those embodied in his complaint already published
in substance IN the HERALD.
Mr. FLoYD's AFFIDAVIT
sets forth that he personally supervised, Mr. Wal
lacks agent the purchase and sale of "Our Boys"
that he wrote the memorandum sale; that be Mr.
French sign IT, as agent for the author; that he
check of Mr.. Wallacks for $500 to Mr. French
as the purchase money; that Immediately after the
purchase he began TO get the comedy ready; that
he then ordered the scenery and properties and had the
parts copied for the company Of Wallack's Theatre;
that he bought for Mr.. Malack the right of exclusive
representation, but right said copy until the
right OF representation bought and that he used
those words IN preparing the contract and the words
expressing guarantee from Br. Byron because they
essential words and confer upon the purchaser sub
stanta rights he AYERS further that from his expert
ence as expert in all things appertaining 10 the
dramatic profession and the management Of theatres
unless the purchaser of the right represent play
in any locality acquires the exclusive right thereto
and the right 70 produce IL originally in such locality
there is nothing 10 purchase which is valuable;
Original or unrepresented play consists ia its exclusive
ownership and its novelty, and that he personally
knows that Mr.. Waack has during the preceding two
weeks OF his possession Of said exclusive right the
comedy Of sour Boys, and relying upon It begun at
much expense the preparations for its production at
the opening of his regular season which has usualv
been during the last week Of September, and which viii
be this year during such week he further states that
he informed and believes that several days after the
sale 10 Mr. Wallack OF the comedy of "Our BOYS"
Augustin DAILY also paid TO MI. Byron, through Mr. r.
H. French as his agent, the or $500 for the priv
ege Of reaininga copy Of the manuscript of the play
which had been intrusted Mr. DAILY for his approba-
ton as a manager; that such payment was made and
whatever claim Mr. DAILY acquired thereby against Mr.
Byron or MI French was 80 acquired under and after
full notice to Mr. DAILY OF the fact Of the purchase by
Mr.. Walack.
THE AFFIDAVIT OF MIR. MOSS
sets forth that be present At the time Of the pur
chase by and sale Of play Mr. Floyd as the repre-
sentative OF Mr. Walack that the exclusive rirh to
produce the play here purchased; that Mr. French
stated that Mr. DAILY had the manuscript copy Of the
play but PROMISED in case of the latters refusal to
give II up, TO send to England for a copy; that Mr.
French made no pTetence Of having sold the play 10 Mr.
DAILY, and that when he left he did so for the avowed
Mr. DAILY
After the submission of the papers Mr. Hall made
brief argument urging Mr.. Walacks right to the con-
tinuation OF the injunction he claimed that Mr. Wal
lacks purchase OF prior date; that he made the
prior payment Of money, and that the prior equities
wholly his He characterized Mr.. French's action
IN the premises in making the sales Us something
extraordinary and Inexplcable
THE MOTION DISSOLVED.
Judge Donohue said that, IN his Of the case the
agency Of NJ. French ceased when he made tho sale
Mr. DAILY that such sale had been ratified by the author
of the play, and while he would not pass upon the
conduct Of Mr. French he dissolve the Injunction
THE PARK THEATRE TROUBLES.
In the Park Theatre matter in which seizure Of the
furniture was made Wednesday night by the Sheriff
under attachment granted by aSdge Of the Marine
Court on account Of non payment by Mr.. William
Stuart, the proprietor Of bill Of $685. for furniture
the attachment vacated yesterday the ground Of
abuse Of the process Of the Court ssezinc the prop
critics just as the play about open. The plain
ths counsel az once crossed the Supreme Court
Chambers, and applied for attachment TO Judge
Donohue who immediately granted IT, but out Of con
sideration for the manager the "order to show
causen returnable forthwith.
Plaintiff counsel thereupOn asked for a few davs 10
prepare the answer to order show cause Judge
Donohue declined 70 grant this but said he would ad-
journ the order 10 nine A. ~ tomorrow plaintiff de-
sired the stipulation that the furniture returned
% the manager forthwith Plaintiffs counsel then re-
tired TO hold council Of war, and the result has
made known