New-York tribune., 1912-04-05
ARNOLD DAILY MUST PAY
Loses Suit on Note for Wages of
Fellow Actor.
is REPRIMANDED BY JUDGE
Court Bids Him Omit Persihage
and Adhere Strictly to the
Answers Desired.

Judging from his unsuccessful appear
ance in court yesterday Arnold Daly's act
ing NAV be better than his promise 10
pay an L o L." II would be no more
than fair, from a layman's point Of view,
to give him the benent OF the doubt in
this instance, as the case went against
him. There were no real dramatic critics
present. so Mr.. DAILY rallied at the plaintir
in the case, denouncing the proceeding as
"a deliberate holdup." until the court
sustained the objections that his testimony
was irrelevant and mad II stricken from
the record.
Mr. Daily made his eEaster appearance
in the Third District Municipal Court IN
answer 10 the complaint Of Vincent stern
royd. an English actor, VINO charged the
defendant with falling TO pay balance
OF $62 30 on salary due him for playing
with Daily at the Berkeley Lyceum In
"dreary drama according 10 some Of the
critcs-entitled Know Thyself," which
had a weeks run In the latter days OF
December, 1909 Mr.. Sternroyd's talents
were wasted In the putty part OF Don
cieres again according 10 some Of the
critics az the time-and II was evident that
fl gave the Englishman great satisfaction
70 reverse the tables yesterday and play
the star part in the court drama before
Justice Thomas E. Murray.
There was a joker in the defendants II
l." which added 70 the zest Of the
Englishmans victory Mr. DAILY insisted
or, . 20 Ha iGapfifViUR
his signature 70 the instrument
The actor interpreted the lines in his
best dramatic fashion adding in an aside
70 the audience. That's quite right; I
signed IT," This exhibit, marked plaintiffs
No l." ran as follows:
Counter Claim Attacked.
p I o 80, and you owe me unpayable
funds for making you an actor"
Daniel W Blumenthal counsel for the
plaintiff, explained the Joker by declaring
that his client had played good parts in
English companies almost before Mr.. DAILY
was born
The plaintiff contended that the Il O To-
had been given 10 him Dy the defendant
in part payment for his salary after Doe
had urgently demanded It Of the defendant.
Besides this promise 10 pay 80, Mr.. Blu
menthal also placed in evidence a signed
statement from Mr.. DAILY 20 Mr. Stern
rOyd. dated December =, 1873 in which
the former confirmed an agreement to pay
the plaintiff $50 for his weeks services.
That made the case douhly hard against
Nr DAILY.
DAILY testified that he had been paying
Know Thyself' for short tour on the
road prior 70 the engagement here, and
that Sternr9yd demanded SlJu a week on
the day before the opening of the play
a the Berkeley Lyceum. He had to prom
.so him the So IN order 10 20 on with
the show he said That was where the
deliberate holdup' came in The plaintiff
denied, IN his testimony. that he had un-
dertaken 20 exercise any duress toward
Mr. DAILY J. NJ. Fedris Mr Days man
ager. had practically engaged him prior 20
thar. be said. and asked him to confirm
the so end Of the contract from Mr.. Da.y,
which he did by getting the latter 10 sign
the statement offered I'm evidence Justice
Murray called attention to the fact that
the statement signed by the defendant ap-
IalthbIl 'oHHIlHru d pI-'l AGREEMENT HAtuc
with the plaintiff, and that seemed 20
paint out the colors in Mr Days picture
u a deliberate holdup."
All parties to the suit appeared n court
early yesterday forenoon and had 10 wait
until 3 p. IN. before the case was reached
on the calendar. Mr.. DAILY was accom-
panied by his manager, Mr.. Fedris, and
his lawyer. Bernard l. Ernst The long
wait evidently wore upon AIr Days
nerves. for he repeatedly crossed one leg
over the other tapped his cane on his chin.
and left the courtroom occasionally for
better air.
Case Quickly Settled.