New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-31
THE "FAUNTLERoY" CASE
A DECISION IN FAVOR OF T. HEM
FRENCH.
,,,sr,crs VAN BRuNT AND PARKER REVERSE THE


JUDGMENT OF THE REFEREE
The General Term of the Supreme Court mas 'e
versed the judgment in the case OF r ran" cr-o
ger against Thomas II. French In which eN-' ,.,
gate Rollins as referee, held that co'''ia'' 80
between the parties In which Sanger was 10 TO- ,
n half interest in all the plays owheu ny - 49,,
French & Son, of which the defendan' was =,
ber The action brought FOR an acoou'
the profits arising out OF the play i"'.'' ~,
Fauntleroy" Sanger asserted thdt ne n"u ,a
interest and that there was a contract. out sa'u
thot :, was NOT in writing Presiding Justice van
PM writing the opinion reversing the judgment
ard ordering a new trial, says: ~,
The magnitude of the record prevents any a1anner
tempt to refer except in the most concise sassariIy
n The salient points which seem to US necessr r,ies
to lead the conclusion that neither 3 In relation
TO the Transactions which have culminated ~ n
large Judgment. The first tIng wnen ITSELF ss
claimed bv the plaintiff. 1t is certalny ptn
ard gives the plaintiff remarKaD,e Witch cir
cnmstance alone would naturally SIEGE de which is
should only be estsoiisne Gy In our judgment
the plaintiff has failed by any prepol'esa claimed
cnre to sustain any bis own OATH is to the con-
trary Tho plaintiff claims that on me the tbev VI should
have the first option to purchase any ana az paay
owned or controlled by either MEMBER 81 ov m or
conirolIei by samuel French & SON Of whicn in ie
defendant was member wct ~, s"J proa5way The
d9r thf For reW b nrnose of producing such plays at
said theatre. and Of exploiting men at 81 said
Arm ~ Sanger g. French: that this option was alone
to be exercised by the plaintiff IN respect ~ bat the
plaintiff had the right take not only any par or
which he chose belonging TO en to the firm OF
samuel French & Son. for the purpose OF anade
exploitation in the un ,o baye half Of the prot
it's arising from such production OF en- owned
Thus y the T ren oi bang entitled to onehalf and
the defendant; Thomas II French beinS Ia NAV for
The purpose OF exploitation in the United states anu
canada and receive onehalf Of the pron,ss a ,e
b he derived of every dollar OF profit arising ron
the ownership Of the play the over m mI' French
Tbis seems to be monstrous contract ana: as NE ne
already been suggested II dep Evidence shows that in
every other transaction had in REFERENCE ~
or the entering into new enterprises; IT was aiways
carefully reduced TO writing ana . on ~ re- law
@ h va craving the contracts in reference 10
The ERECTION of the Broadway Theatre with ho,
word being said to any one IN regard 10 It's HAVING
We find the evidence that eivns
him this right far the receipts at ehe nop te
way Theatre and at the Boston t tord Famnte.
roy concerned Sanger acrounteqb we does he
French for the whole OF them A ,o his attention?
Why that he waived those-that he had co rtsa
saton with French in which he waived them 81, tS
nroduct}on of revenue under this contract, ana ne
waived them. 1880 ,ada batween
That some arrangement was maze peuwes,n
French and Sanger at the interview at the lawyer
offica in which II Is claimed that this extraoIunaIs
contract was entered into seems 10 m peyV t1as
doubt The subsequent conduct OF. eIe 30,
Indicates that there some sort or an ar ans
mont betw ean them but 1t also shows tnal II was
not of the character claimed upon the part Vi '''e
As an excuse for the conduct OF sanger IN refer,
ance to eomp features Of the business IL is clanleu
that ne did not know until. JUST pr:cI 10 '.e Son
rov,' belonged to the firm OF French x son
he srpposed it was the Individual properly OF SAN
mol french That this claim was "lthout loo,ua
tIon IL evidenced by the fact that on une S-u %
e. Son relating to the production OF Little L p!
Fauntleroy" and he must thereby nave kho"ii .s
they controlled the play. And 1t Is ahotner ssi M
an, fact that as far the exploiting OF thls
plav was concerned Sanger had nothing Mna,e'et
~ a., with IT, French attended TO the whole OF
mis- business although It came within sanger par
ticuIar fed II he interested IN the enterprise
It seems 10 us that the evidence SHOWS that there
was some arrangement, but there Is no sausI 5ctoLy
nroof in regard It's terms. the eXtraordinary
claim made by Sanger being unsupported by any,
thing except his own word and that - conferences
bv his oath and his acts. We cannot see now an!
Judgment can be supported upon such evldence-
certainly not one Of the extraordinary character
fonnd in the case at bar. affecting the rights or
parties for almost a generation 49,,
The Judgment should be reversed ana new trial
ordered with costs 10 the appellant 10 ABIDE the
event.
Justice Alton Il. Parker concurs in this decision
and Justice David L. Foett dssents. The amount
involved In the litigation is nearly $1,000 kN-Judge
4 ! Dittenhoefer is the counsel in the case for
Mr. French, Almon Goodwin appearing for MT
Sanger