Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-03-12
SHE MUST WEAR TIGHTS.
LILLIAN Russell is Not Supreme to Her
Mnnager--ContrRcts Must be Kept.


NIanager--Contracts Must he Kept.
New YORK, March GILLIAN Russell
will have to pay her former manager,
James @. Duff, $4,000 for her refusal 10
wear tights while appearing in ''The
Queens Mate" Company two years ago.
Tie famous controversy arising from
the prima donna's difficulty with her
manager on the tights question, which
has already been detailed, resulted in q
suit brought against her by Manager
Dull i'll the supreme court for breaking
her contract.
This suit was decided to-day against
the "Queen of comic OPERA" and in
favor Of MIR. Duff. Miss Russell con-
tracted with Duff in October, 1887, TO
play in his company until June, 1889,
appearing in whatever operas he should
produce. Among them was the
Queens Mate" in which Lillian had
to appear in the uniform of a cadet, con-
sisting of tights, for one short scene not
over ten minutes. She appeared in
tights for three or four months until the
company reached Philadelphia, when
she suddenly informed her manager
that he would have to furnish another
costume. She was exposing herself to
too great q risk of catching cold by
wearing the tights, and nature had been
too generous with her to permit her for
tifying the scanty garments with mater
ial underneath for protection.
Manager Duff refused TO change the
costume, and his star broke her contract
and went to the Casino. In his decision
the Judge bears down upon Lillian. ut
is insisted he says, that the defendant
was justified in breaking her contract
because the plaintiff had refused to sub
stitute more healthful costume for the
tights in which the defendant has APP
peared in opera, and the wearing Of
which she objects to on the ground of
health.
Before the production of the opera
she was consulted by the plaintiff with
regard to il, and informed that il would
be necessary for her to wear tights, and
she agreed that she would so appear.
This has been admitted by her, but at
tire same time she claimed that she
agreed TO do SO only during the summer.
But, in point of fact, the plaintiff did
appear in tights during cold weather,
and never claimed exemption by agree
ment during such weather; and mas
much rs the plaintiff had not only the
right TO prescribe the costumes, but also
the duty to furnish them, and no evil
dence has been adduced that the cos
tunes Of an opera change with the sea-
sons of the year, or that the defendant
everclaimedany right to such change.
| cannot find that the claim now adj
Vaneed by the defendant In this respect
has any foundation in fact. In point of
fact, the defendant did appear in this
part and in tights for at least $50 nights.
The defendant did catch cold, but it
docs not appear that il came from wear
ing tights. When she was advised to
wear something underneath that would
protect her, she refused Mt once, because
in her Judgment it would ruin her out
lines 10 do so. She never discussed the
matter with the plaintiff, but the proof
goes further. 1t justties the conclusion
that the excuse Of the defendant was in
a great measure mere pretense.n
Miss Russell is not III the cast at the
Casino this week, but ut home suffering
with some bronchial trouble. She gave
a bond with security to Duff for 81 1000
and he will now get the money.