New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-10
LOOSED FROM HER TIGHTS
1T COST LILLIAN $4,000. HOWEVER.
MR.. DUFF WINS HIS SUIT FOR BREACH OF CON
TRACT AGAINST MISS RUSSELL.


Judge Freedman in the superior Court, yesterday
handed down an opinion in favor OF James Z. DUN
in his sut against Miss Lillian Russell for breach OF
her contract with him. Miss Russell entered into con-
tract with Mr.. Duff on october !, 1857, to appear
in such operas he should produce during the se'o
THE Queens Nate was produced. in which MISS
Russell had part the appropriate costume for WHO"
included tights" Miss Russell consented 10 "ea.
tights, in fact Mr. Duff declared that she seemed
anxious TO wear them when the proposition was first
made She was to receive salary of $500 week.
Everything went smoothly until the company ar
rived at Philadelphia, and there Miss Russell lolo Mr.
Duff that she would never wear "ughis ae'i'"
She gave as her excuse that by wearing such
thin costume she was injuring her health. She de-
clared that she caught cold in consequence OF uic
draughts in the theatres. She produced the cer'ii'
Gates OF her physician declaring that she must re-
ran from wearing tights again or ne woud ho' oo
responsible for the consequences
After Miss Russell refused TO sing with Mr.. Dun
she signed a contract with the Aronsons 10 sing a'
the Casino Mr.. Duff then secured an in)nncuoh re-
strainng her from singing with any company except
his own Miss Russell gave Mr. Dun bona LOT
90 600 TO indemnify him for any augment when no
might get against her for his loss In consequence Oh
the breach OF the contract he would not enforce inc
Injunction II was stipulated that the $1,000 was the
amount to be paid to Mr. DUH PROVIDED tiie courO
decided that he was entitled to the Injunction.
on Miss Russel's action sit is insisted he says
that the defendant was justified In breaking her
contract with the plaintiff because the paihtiH had
refused to substitute a more healthful costume lot
the tights In whicl. the defendant had appeared in
certain opera and the wearing of which she OBJECTED
to on the ground OF danger to her health.
Before the production OF the opera she was consulted
by the plaintiff with regard to 1t and Informed tie
IL would be necessary for her TO wear tights ana she
agreed that she would appear. This has been an
mittcd by her. but at the time she claimed that
she agreed to do so only during the summer. But In
point of fact the defendant did appear In tights
during cold weather. and never claimed exemption
by agreement during such weather and inasnuch as
the plaintiff had not only the right to prescribe tho
costumes but also the duty TO furnish them, and no
evidence has been adduced that the costumes OF an
opera change with the seasons Of the year. or that
the defendant claimed any right to snch a
change. cannot find that the claim now advanced by
the defendant in this respect has any foundation in
fact In point Of fact. the defendant did appear in
this part ard in tights for at least so nights, and
from twenty 10 thirty chorus girls appeared in the
costume during each performance.
The defendant undoubtedly al several times caught
cold. but the real cause has not been proved When,
in answer To her claim that the cold was caused by
physicians, who, however, were not Informed Of the
fact that she them only for about tel minutes
during each performance. that she should wear some
thing underneath them which would protect her, she
it, but because in her judgment II would ruin her out
lines TO do In fact, she never discussed tho
matter with the plaintiff with view to compromise
the difficulty, ii any there was. But proof
in this case COOS much further. II ustifes the con
clusiOn that this excuse Of the defendant was in
great measure Il mere prctence.'