The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-04-08
DISMISSED THE BILL
The Suit of Louise Beaudet Against
Herr BandmanD.
1T is FOR AN ACCOUNTING
She Seems to Know Put Little
Abou. Financial Business-No 9TH
ing for Her FaIns But
TroubIe-Their Travels.

has the following in regard to the suit of
Louise Beaudet against Daniel Band
mann which will be of general interest:
The suit of Louise Beaudet against
Daniel Bandmann, for an accounting, was
decided yesterday by Judge Hiram
Knowles, in the United States district
court. 1t was tried nearly two years ago.
Bandmann wins. and the bill is dismiss
ed with costs"
The suit at that time was the talk OF
a continent 1t attracted the attention of
theatrical people all over the United
States. for both Bandmann and Beaudet
were leading members of their profession.
During the trial, which filled the court
room with spectators every day. the wit
nesses made several journeys around the
world, in the testimony. Louise Beaudet's
lawyer guided her on the long trip, and
then Bandmann's lawyer went over the
route with him, and Miss Beaudets coun-
sci went after Bandmann and there was
another excursion around the globe.
The end of II all, in the law suit. was
the starting place. Miss Beaudet has
thus far had nothing but her trouble for
her pains.
Reviewing the bill of complaint. Judge
Knowles quotes the paragraph that tells
how. in May, 1850. the plaintiff and de-
PENDANT entered into an agreement by
which they contemplated travelling
through Australia, New Zealand. India,
China and the Hawaiian islands. And in
pursuance of the agreement the litigants
did embark for Australia and gave enter
tainments IN the cities aforesaid, and also
in the Tasmania and the Malay peninsula.
The trip lasted three years and a half.
When they returned to the United States
in 1884, the partnership was continued in
force by mutual consent on the 1889 The
profits of the enterprise from 1850 until
~ ..l.
ed abroad and the remainder in the Unit
ed States. The object of the suit was to
declare that co-partnership existed. which
was denied by the defendant, and TO force
an accounting.
Upon the question of partnership"
says the court, the answer fully meets
the allegations of the bill. The import
ant question is, then, as to whether the
co-partnership was ever formed 1t is
encumbent upon the plaintiff to establish
this fact by a preponderance of the evil
dence."
Judge Knowles says there were many
difficulties in the way of arriving at a
conclusion. The parties fully and COM
pletely contradicted each other upon that
point.
THE court does not feel that IT can
place full confidence in the statements OF
either party" the opinion says. THE
plaintiff was in the beginning about 16
years old. She had been an actress only
a short time. having played what are
termed 'ingenue parts
I'm what is known as legitimate dra-
ma" says the court, 'she had but little
reputation"
Her first contract with the defendant.
on trip through the Pacific states, was
for $50 per week and expenses. The first
contract was in force five or six weeks.
The defendant about the same time was
AZ years old. He had a wide and favora-
BILE reputation in Germany, England and
America, and was what was termed in
the histrionic world a star" He had
accumulated money and had credit.
The plaintiffs account of how the part
nership was formed Is taken bodily from
the evidence, which the court quotes She
claimed she had received an offer of 5000
week to play in comic opera. There
was some talk as to whether she would
break the contract and accept the offer.
Plaintiff said IL was a great temptation
Then the evidence is quoted:
The defendant said to the plaintiff: II
will do better for you than 5000 per week
i propose to star you through America
as my equal partner" The plaintiff said
MY ambition is to get mother a home"
The defendant replied: You shall get
your mother a home before you are 80
and you shall be Independent. / will send
take care of your money so you can't
spend it. ! am older and wiser than you
are"
There was more of that kind of talk
Bandmann said, plaintiff testified, that IL
1t was more than s14 per week for board
he would take care of that. II will never
deduct more than s14 per week for board. -
he said. From that time on the plant
III did not receive any more salary.
Judge Knowles int he
goes into the details and freely expresses
his opinion of the particulars involved in
the expert testimony about the stage. He
says:
There is another part of this arrange
ment not here stated. according to the
evidence of the plaintiff. When she re-
ceived money from a benefit night IL was
not to enter into the partnership fund,
but to belong to the plaintiff individually.
IL is claimed that this was given to her
because she did more toward training the
performers. But do not think IL is true
she did this. IL defendant had a benefit
night the profits thereof was not to be
the money of the defendant, but of the
firm. 1t appears also there was an agree
ment by which monthly allowance was
TO be sent by the defendant TO the mother
of plaintiff then living in New York The
defendant denies in his evidence the ac-
count OF this contract as given by plant
iff. and asserts that IL is a concocted
story. IL there was any such contract,
let US see what was the subsequent con-
duct OF the parties. After the tour of the
Bandmann company in Oregon and Puget
sound was completed. and plaintiff and
defendant, according to the evidence OF
plaintiff, said America Is overrun. and
there Is no more money for the legiti-
mate" And the plaintiff says: he told
me about his great success in Australia
he had been there before and had coined
money. He was well known and didn't
believe in America. and he proposed we
should 20 to Australia instead OF Amer
lea" Plaintiff says she had never heard
Of Australia before. but she agreed to go
with him. Then the arrangement was
made that the allowance for her mother
should be paid by defendants lawyer.
Morris Goodheart. in New York. who was
his agent. he. defendant, having a house
there In one week after this plaintiff
and defendant. without other company.
sailed from San Francisco 10 Australia.