The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-08-02
How a Case was Tried In an English
Court,


For the information of people who
imagine that an English court of justice
is distinguished by dignity and decor,im
to a far higher degree than our Ameri-
can courts we will give an account of a
proceeding in the Court of the King g
Bench at London, on July Is.
The case tried, moreover, had a curl
GUS interest in itself. 1t was an action
by player Of the stage name Of ALFRED
KENDRICK to recover damages for an
alleged breach of contract by FORBES
ROBERTSON, the distinguished actor
manager In 1901 Mr.. ROBERTSON en-
gagged KENpRICK for "a leading juvenile
part" in the now well-known play OF
Mice and Men, and agreed to pay him
Gl2 week for two or three weeks in a
trial of the play at Manchester. Should
the piece be success and produced in
London" wrote Mr.. ROBERTSON, Il
should want you with us 1t proved
successful, but when it was carried to
London, few months later, another
player was engaged for the part Mr..
KENDRICK had played, and Mr.. ROBERT
son explained the substitution by say
ing: at is more a question of person
atty than anything else" Evidently,
he was dissatisfied with Mr.. kENpRICK
or, as he pat it, the part did not suit him,
and to soften the criticism he added:
ave all Of us play parts at times that do
not suit us, mores the pity"
Mr. KENDRIC6, on the theory that the
letters of Mr.. ROBERTSON constituted a
contract TO play in the piece during its
run Of fortytlve weeks, sued for dam
ages to the amount of his loss of the
salary stipulated upon, less the sum he
had actually earned during the time.
In behalf of Mr. ROBERTSON it was
contendcd that the engagement of Mr.
kENDRlCK was subject to custom in the
theatrical profession that an actor en-
gagged for the run of a piece could be dis
missed with fortnights notice, as was
done in this case But several actors
testified that there is no such custom in
London.
Now let us make some extracts from
the London Telegraph's report of these
proceedings before Justice Sir j. G. LAW
RANCEand spec ial jury as an illustration
Of the possibilities in an important London
court. The plaintiff was under exami-
nation.
"Mr. Justice LAwRANcE-Mr. BOWERS case is II
you are once engaged at a London theatre you can
never be got rid Of ILaughtcrl
MIR. BOWER Counsel for pla!nti N Not NJ all
With great respect, that is a travesty.
Mr. Justice LhwRANCE.-You arc not addressing
me- you are addressing the jury: my turn will come
presently. Laughter You arc led away nv
your own
MIR. DowEn-Vcrboslty. lLaughter do not
mind II being given name. 'I.aughtcrl Ny
case Is. when m actor Is engaged for the run of =
piece he Is engaged for the run OF the piece. and
his engagement lasts while that piece lasts II he
gets into piece Ike Charley's Aunt II is all the
better for the actor"
Here is the report of the examination
of witness:
Mr., LIONEL RrGNoLD gave evidence that he
had been engaged With tho theatrical profession
all his life.
Mr.. BOWER must not ash you how long, bu,
some years A.-All my life,
Mr. Justice LAwRANCE- Nearly all your Hfe9
A-No; all my life lnughter-as long az can re
member,
witness said hc knew Of no custom Of a fort
nights notice.
MIR WALLACE defendants counscb DO I'M