Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-05-03T00:00:00

mir. UsHITTY stated that this action was brought by the pro- prietors of the Adelphi Theatre, to recover a compensation in da- nuages azainst the d.fendant, for breach of contract, whereby he en- gaced to perform for two seasons at their theatre. MIr. SCARLETT said, that the plaintiffsl, lessrs. Rodwell and Jones, were proprietorsoftheAdelphi Theatre, and the defendant was a performer of considerable merit, whose real name was Paul Redge, but who was known to the public by the name of Signor Paulo. ( A lauvh.) On the 6th of June, 1823, this gentleman, wimo was a favourite in many popular characters, but especial]y in thie imnortant part of Clown, entered into an engagement with the plaintiffs for two seasons, and they calculated accordingly on his va- luable services. He chose, however, when summoned in the usual coturse, to refuse all performance of his contract, and shortly ap- peared at one of the winiter theatres, where he played the Clown witl great applause. Talent like his was not to be supplied in a moment; and the managers of the Adelphi Theatre sustained considerable loss by the absence of one whose agility and humour were exceedingly relished by their spectators. Thevydid not seek to recover all they had lost ; still less did they press for vindictive damages: but they thought it right to bring this action, in order that pertbrmers miglt learn to respect engagements of this kitid, thc breach of which ex- posed managers to the resentment of the public, whom they were ansious to gratifv, and deprived them of profits whicl they earned with anxiety and Labour. MIr. George Rorwell said he knew the defendant, whose real name was Paul Redge, but who was called Signor Paulo. (" Not Apol- lo," said the Lnrd Chief Justice.) He had plaYed four years at the Adelphi, when that theatre was conducted by MIr. Scott, and was a great favourite-a particular favourite with the witness; he played chieflv Clown, in which he had few rivals, and also distin- guished himself in thc part of Bily 1Faters. (A laugh) On the fth of .Tune, 1823, he signed the agreemcent on which the action was brou-ht. l 'Nheagreementwas read. Itpurported to be witlh Air.Rodvrell only, andl stipulated that the defendant should perform for the two next seasons at the Adelphi for 31. a week, play.house pay, subject to the rules of the theatre, and with liberty to send into the house 251. worth of tickets on one night in each season, to be named by thc Mna- nager.1 Mlr. William Lee, the stage-manager, proved that on the 7th of October, 1823, the defendant was sumnmoned to the thcatre, and re- fused to attend, and that he performed aftetvards at Drury-lane. He was an excellent cloan, and a very consp-cuous Bily WVaters in Tol and Je. ry. There were performances at the Adelphi last season. Mr. SCARLETT was about to call Afr. Dunn, the treasurer of Drury-lane., to prove the sum vwhich tlte defendant receivtd there, when The LonD CNISEF JUSTICE reminded him that this was not material, as he did not seek vindictive damages- Mr. SCARLETT assented, and said hc would take a verdict for 40s. Mlr. AlAnRYAT submitted that the pslaintifls could not recover, because the action was brought by two persons, and the contract was made only with one; and because they had not shown that they hiad the sanction of a licence. Ilr. SCAnLETT and Mlr. CHITTY replied, that the contract be- ing made witlh one of two partners for the benefit of both, might be sued on by botb, according to the case of " Skinner v. Stocks," 4 Barn. and Ald., 437; and that the theatre must be presumed licensed, because the lefendant had treated it as such, and because the performers were all rogues and vagabonds if it was not, which the law would not presume. The LoRD CNIEF JUST CE overruled both objections; and iMlr. MARtRYAT admitted that he could not contend against the verdict which the plaintiffs sought. The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiftfsDamages forty shillings. I COURT OF KINC'S BENCH, WESTxmr,STER, IMlAY 1. ROD WELL AND ANOTHER V. REDGE.