New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-07
FIGHT ABOUT WAKEFIELD.
BelascO's Deal 5Cith KIa5u s Erlauger
aired IN Court.

The suit brought BY Joseph Brooks ar,,,zs
David BelascO. to dissolve the copartnsrshir vfich
Brooks alleges existed between them Tor f-~ l~x-
ploitatiOn Of David WarHeId ana The srls - 49,.
Belaseo Company against Elaw & ErIangsr Tor a
dissolution OF the partnership which existed b.
tween them. and also for an accounting vVe-s
tried together In the Supreme Court before Jus
uce Fitzgerald yesterday. Abraham Gr1ber an
pearing for Brooks and KlaW q Erlauger ana
Samuel Untermyer for Belasco and the RaIazcs
Company The particular question raised vas
whether a secret partnership was entered into
between BelasCO and sEElaW q Erlanzer. Il b~lnr
alleged that Brooks was merely a dummy
Mr.. Untermyer read afidavits by the contsusI--
parties. asserting they were Of 50 contradictory a
nature as TO reveal the most fagrsnt and hopeless
perjury one side or the other. KiaT q ErlanSer
he said were the real partners % Belasc0. bue
had named their employee, Brooks. a. a substitute
They were "a share equally IN the expenses o. ex-
plotting David Warheld. including booking f-sS
Belasco asserted that E1law & ErIauser had rath-
cred in special fees for the booking Of The Aue-
uoneer' to large amount. and il question
whether he was entitled share I'm $40 or E8Ooa.
the former being the customary fee.
Mr.. GrubeT. replying. said Belasco knew exactly
what he was doing. and that the authors o. Tbs
Auctoneer" were to receive per cent royalties %
the weekly receipts up s. COO and per cent
5000 Brooks discovered after year had passed
by that they we're dividing these royalties with
BelascO. who took one-third Of them under secret
agreement with them Brooks then demanded
dissolution Of the partnership and an accounting
Mr.. Untermyer said Belaseo had put up con
siderable amount OF money.
He did not" interrupted Mr. Gruber-
He put uP $780," replied Mr.. UuteFmyeT
IF he did it was stage money" retorted Mr.
Gruber
Lee Arthur Kahn testified that he eolIaborstsd IN
the writing OF The Only Levy for Mr. Bslasco.
the name being subsequently, changed to The Auc-
uoneer." He said he had agreement BY which
he was to receive half Of from per cent to per
cent of royalties. and that he was not to say any
thing about it to Brooks. as Belasco did not want
him to know about IT,
David Warheld. the OF both actions. testi-
fed that the play as first turned out was Frost
Belasco, he said, reWrOte whole parts % the play
Then II was your tranSceCdental ability that
saved the play?" said Mr. GFuber-
We'll. I hope So" was the reply
You have been telling the same stories for ths
yes. perhaps so: but had known what vas
going to happen here would have memori7ed the
Mr. BeIasco testified that in bargaining for the
booking OF WarheId Mr.. ErangeF said; Il want
50 per cent: II don't get IT, will curse you CUT
Of the theatrical business" After Mr. Erlauger
gained his point. witness asserted, he said ne ola
not want Those fellows across the street 70 know
anything about IT."
trOduced in evidence. made 10 KlaW 4 Er-
LANCER and signed by Mr. Belasco-
Did you ever see Mr.. Brooks?
II don't think spoke ten words with Mr.
Brooks in nv life replied Belasco.
The case win be continued to-day