Further Accounts of Roselle v. Conover

The Daily News (20 January, 1887)

THE THEATRICAL SLANDER CASE.
_____

     The hearing of the case of “Roselle v. Conover” was continued yesterday before Mr. Justice Grove and a special jury. It was an action brought by Miss Amy Roselle, the actress, against Mrs. Conover, of the Olympic Theatre, to recover damages for wrongful dismissal from her engagement at that theatre, and also for slander.
     Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. H. Kisch were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Kemp, Q.C., Mr. Boxall, and Mr. C. A. Reeve for the defendant.
     Mrs. Anna Conover, the defendant, was called, and said that in 1885 she was unfortunately lessee and manageress of the Olympic Theatre. She had played there “Alone in London,” and Mr. Buchanan selected the actors and actresses, whilst witness found the funds and did a lot of the work. She became personally responsible for the payment of the performers. Miss Jay suggested that Miss Roselle should perform the principal part. She suggested that Miss Jay should make an inquiry, and, in consequence of her report of that result, the engagement was entered into, and the contract was signed on October 10. The part of Annie Meadows, or Nan, was a very difficult part, and required a great deal of physical exertion to play it properly. She thought Miss Roselle played the part very well, but she noticed her figure. She, however, was too matronly for the part. She had to be carried over a bridge whilst she was unconscious. She played the scene as if not unconscious. She assisted herself, to the help of Mr. Standing. She could not say if she appeared fatigued, but it was a part that would make anyone tired. She liked her very much indeed, and tried to make her comfortable, though she appeared somewhat high. She tried to make everybody comfortable at her theatre—she was afraid too much so. (Laughter.) About the middle of November she noticed her figure, and how she played her part, and she suggested that Miss Jay should make further enquiry. She, however, learnt the plaintiff’s condition from Mr. Buchanan, and was rather pained that it had not been communicated to witness. This was about ten days before the dismissal. She said to her business manager that she was making little money, and the actors ought to take half salary. This was said about a matinée. Miss Roselle was spoken to, and refused. Witness met her in a passage, and said she was sorry she had been spoken to. She got her full salary. Witness respected the plaintiff’s susceptibilities in every way, and she did not think that Miss Roselle herself had anything to do with this matter. Witness dictated a letter to her business manager on Oct. 21, and she was afraid that he tried to improve upon it instead of sending just what she dictated. Mr. Dacre answered that letter. After what took place on Nov. 24 she was desirous of putting an end to the engagement at the end of the six weeks, because she found that Miss Roselle was unfit to play the part in her then condition. That was the only reason. She felt that she had been duped and made use of; a catspaw or a scapegoat. (Laughter.) Miss Jay made a complaint as to Mr. Dacre, and afterwards witness requested, with Mr. Buchanan, that he should not be admitted to the theatre, because his manner to witness was rude. He was afterwards admitted, but only to his wife’s dressing-room. Miss Jay, on the 2nd December, complained that the plaintiff had left out a part of a scene. Miss Jay said—
     Mr. Lockwood objected that this was not evidence.
     Witness—My dear sir, you must allow me. I am “Alone in London,” and a foreigner. (Laughter.) It is necessary for my own protection, for I am accused of slander, when I have not uttered slander.
     Mr. Lockwood—Excuse me, Madame, I am not under your management yet. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Kemp—What a pity you are not! (Renewed laughter.)
     The witness, in continuation, spoke to some conversations which she was said to have had, and which she did not well remember, but, in substance, she denied having uttered any slander. She added that in the theatrical profession one never knew who were friends or enemies. (Laughter.) She could not remember the words she spoke to Mr. Standing, and she might have used the words he spoke yesterday. She was in one continual temper, because she had a great deal of worry. (Laughter.) Witness was on the 4th December served with a writ for slander, and then there was no claim for a breach of contract.
     Cross-examined: She had never managed a theatre before she took the Olympic, nor since; she had no desire. She had not acted before then, but she had played since. She had played Lady Macbeth.
     Not with Mr. Toole?—No. (Loud laughter.) She had said that she was in a continual temper at the Olympic, and no doubt she said things which in her calmer moments she would not have thought of.
     Witness said she considered that the plaintiff had entered into her service under false pretences, knowing all the time that she was enceinte. She did not volunteer any statement about the plaintiff. She spoke to Mr. Standing, who was a married man, and played with the plaintiff every night. She said to him “Do you not think she is going to have a baby?”—(a laugh)—and he said that he did not know.
     And did you say “What a fool you must be”? (Laughter.)—I may have done so. (Renewed laughter.) She also asked the question of married ladies as well.
     Mr. Justice Grove—You know, I suppose, that married women do sometimes have children.
     Witness—Oh, certainly. I know from experience. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Lockwood—Why did you not go to Miss Roselle?—Why did she not speak to me? I treated her with the greatest courtesy, but she kept me at a distance, and treated me as a child. She treated me simply as a bank to draw her money from. (Laughter.)
     Miss Harriet Jay said that she was an actress and an authoress also—principally an authoress. She had written besides this play about eight novels. When the piece was to be brought out witness was offered the part of Nan, but she herself suggested that Miss Roselle should play the part. Soon after she came witness asked her if she was enceinte, and she said “No.” Witness said this because she did not show enough exertion in the part. She appeared so exhausted on several occasions that witness sent her some wine. Witness remembered part of the scene being left out. Miss Roselle never before omitted it. She did not behave very well to witness. She was very insulting to her on the stage. Their parts were very sympathetic, and the coldness of the plaintiff’s demeanour, and her looking at witness so disdainfully, utterly unnerved her, and prevented her from acting properly. In the particular scene that was in question she behaved most abruptly; and the part which she omitted was most important. There was no appearance of forgetfulness. Witness thought that she was angry.
     Have you any doubt that she left it out purposely?
     Mr. Lockwood objected to the question, as asking really what the jury had to decide, and it was not put.
     Witness: She afterwards made a communication to Mrs. Conover, and told her what she believed to be perfectly true—Mr. Dacre behaved rudely to her.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the next witness, said that he was the author of many works, besides plays, and he was joint author with Miss Jay of the particular piece now in question. He took part in the bringing out of the play, and also in its management, both in America and at the Olympic. He did not notice the exhibition of any fatigue on the plaintiff’s part at rehearsals. There would be naturally a reluctance to go through the laborious parts at rehearsals in the case of a lady of her position on the stage. He, however, wished her to be carried over the bridge, but he was asked by Mr. Standing not to insist upon it, as if this was done she would faint away. Witness had expected that she would be carried at night, but she was not carried. She did the best she could to assist Mr. Standing with her feet. She assisted herself up the stairs and over the bridge.
     She was supposed to be insensible? She was supposed to be in a dead swoon, and he did not think that a person who was in a dead swoon would walk to the place of her own execution. (Loud laughter.) This sort of thing continued throughout the whole of her performance. He could not give the precise date when he became aware of the cause of this, but it was within a week, he thought, of the production of the piece. He saw Mr. Dacre. He came to witness’s room at the theatre, after the proposal to reduce his wife’s salary had been made by Mrs. Conover. There was a little shadow of truth, a little verbal truth, in the conversation spoken to as having taken place with him. He said that Mrs. Conover could readily break the engagement, and then he instanced what had sometimes been done. He said what she could do if she were dishonourable, which he knew her not to be. He never in any way suggested that she should so act. The witness added that another action had been brought against him for the same slander.
     Mr. Munsell Griffiths, a solicitor, who had been present at rehearsals and performances of the piece, said that, among others, he witnessed the performance on the 2nd of December, and she was not carried over the bridge. Further, when she was supposed to be tied to the stake she did not scream so long or so loud as she should have done. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Lockwood—You noticed that her screams had got fainter. Are you a judge of screams? (Laughter.)
     Witness—I can assure you that, after having seen some twenty performances, I was a very good judge. (Much laughter.)
     His lordship summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict.
     In half-an-hour they returned, and said that they found that the slander was uttered, but that it did not injure the plaintiff; and, as to the wrongful dismissal, they gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 190l.

___

Reynolds’s Newspaper (23 January, 1887)

A THEATRICAL CASE.

     In the Queen’s Bench Division the case of Roselle v. Conover was heard.
     The plaintiff, Mrs. Dace, better known as Miss Amy Roselle, was an actress, and the defendant was Mrs. Conover, of the Olympic Theatre. The action was brought to recover damages for slander of the plaintiff in her professional character, and also for wrongful dismissal. The defendant to this pleaded privilege, and also exoneration and discharge from the contract.
     Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. H. Kisch were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Boxall for the defendant.
     Mr. Lockwood, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff had married Mr. Arthur Dacre, and in October, 1885, she was staying with her husband in the Isle of Wight. At that time Mr. Buchanan, in conjunction with his sister-in-law, Miss Jay, had written “Alone in London,” and this play was to be produced at the Olympic. Under these circumstances Miss Amy Roselle was communicated with with the view of her taking the leading part of Nan, and there was an agreement entered into on the 10th of October, 1885, between the plaintiff and Mrs. Conover. By this agreement Mrs. Conover engaged the professional services of Miss Amy Roselle to play at any theatre in London for the run of “Alone in London” commencing on the 24th of October, six weeks’ run guaranteed. She was to play the leading rôle, and she was to have £30 a-week. It happened that the commencement of the performance was postponed from the 24th of October till the 2nd of November, and the plaintiff accepted half-salary in reference to that time. Miss Jay took the part of a London street boy, which was not the leading rôle. The play fell flat, and about the middle of November there was a morning performance, for which Miss Amy Roselle was entitled to payment in full. She was, however, asked by Mr. Boss, the acting manager, to accept half-salary in respect of it. Mr. Dacre objected to this, but it was said that the management were losing something like £200 a-week. A letter was soon afterwards written by Mr. Dacre to Mr. Boss in reference to the condition of the plaintiff, though her child was not born until March following; but the management seemed to have fastened upon this. The plaintiff was asked to take less than her full salary, and upon this a correspondence ensued. She continued to play till December 2, and upon that occasion the plaintiff by some mistake, unfortunately, went off the stage at the first cue—the kissing of a hand by another player—instead of the second kissing of the hand. The consequence of this was that Miss Jay was left upon the stage without the opportunity of expressing her moral sentiments. (Laughter.) On December 3 Mr. Martin, the defendant’s solicitor, wrote to the plaintiff:—“In consequence of your conduct last night, when I understand you purposely cut off part of an act, and thereby seriously interfered with the proper performance of the play, I am instructed by Mrs. Conover and Mr. Buchanan to enclose you bank-note for £30, in full discharge of your salary to the 4th inst., the date on which your engagement expires.” Statements of this kind were repeated about the theatre, and this was the slander complained of.
     Mr. Justice Grove feared that the jury did not understand what was meant by the word “cue.” (Laughter.)
     Mr. Lockwood: If they did not they ought to do—(laughter)—and he understood them that they did know. He did not know whether his lordship was equally familiar with it. (A laugh.)
     Mr. Justice Grove: Yes, but he did not become acquainted with it until he was in somewhat advanced life, and he thought that perhaps the jury were equally ignorant.
     Mr. Lockwood: If your lordship should tell me to leave the court, my cue would be “court.” (Loud laughter.) He trusted that it would be long before his lordship would say that, however.
     Miss Amy Roselle then gave evidence to the effect that there was never any complaint as to her playing in “Alone in London.” The defendant said that she did not know what the piece would be worth without her acting. She added that they were losing £200 a week, and that she was losing so much that her trustees would not allow her to continue much longer. The witness added that her condition at the time in no way interfered with her performance. On the night of the mistake Miss Jay was playing Chickweed. Her part was to kiss witness’s hand. She then had to go to the gate, and then ought to have stopped and said, “Oh, you will come again promptly!” Instead of stopping she mistook the first good-bye, and went straight off the stage. Her omission did not in the slightest interfere with the action of the piece. Such a thing frequently happened, and no complaint was made to her upon that occasion. The performance continued under Mrs. Conover’s management until the 15th January, 1886. What witness claimed was for six weeks’ salary, £180. There were also three matinées, which were £5 each. She had been paid for one, but she claimed for two, that was £10, making together £190, as special damage. During all the time that she played she satisfactorily performed her part, and she did not suffer from fatigue or any other ailment. Her son was born on the 26th March, 1886. No announcement was made in public as to her sudden dismissal. It came to her knowledge that Miss Jay was to take her part in the provinces.
     Miss Roselle, the plaintiff, on Tuesday again went into the witness-box, and was cross-examined by Mr. Kemp. She said that before she undertook the part in the play it was read over to her by Miss Jay, and she knew the character of the part that she had to perform. The piece was the story of a brutal husband ill-treating his wife, and in one scene he attempted to murder her. She was not aware that Mrs. Conover wished Miss Jay to perform her part. A moderate deal of physical exertion was required in her part.
     You had to fall down, and then to be carried over a bridge to be murdered?—No; not to fall down, but into Mr. Standing’s arms, and he had to lead me off.
     Did you, instead of that, trip off the stage, or walk off?—No. Before she commenced Miss Jay did not tell her that she could not perform a part which required so much physical exertion in consequence of her state of health. Her child was born on the 26th of March, and she had engaged herself for the run of the piece. She had not formed any intention when she should cease playing. She did not at the rehearsal faint away in consequence of the physical exertion required. Her husband did not suggest that another lady should be engaged to play her part. She did not complain of or sneer at Miss Jay, and she had no knowledge that the lady complained of insulting language from witness’s husband. Her husband required to be in the theatre whilst she was playing, but she did not remember whether he forbade her to play unless he was there. She did not threaten to wreck the “Sluice act.” She said it was part of the arrangement that her husband should be admitted, and unless he was admitted she should refuse to play. He was admitted, but she did not know that it was upon the condition that he should keep to her dressing-room. She did not know why her husband was not admitted. She did not inquire; she was not on speaking terms with Mrs. Conover. She had caused a very unpleasant letter to be written. That was on the 21st of November, and a few nights after witness refused to act unless her husband was admitted. It was a rude letter; it said that she was not doing justice to the part. The expression was that she had jeopardised the success of the piece. That she thought extremely rude, when she was doing her duty properly. She was properly doing her work at the time. Her husband wrote to the management of the theatre. He referred to the gross, coarse, and indelicate letter which had been written about witness, and to the manager being “contemptible enough.” She did not consider that “rude” under the circumstances. Mr. Buchanan asked her husband if she would go on acting after the six weeks at a smaller salary, and Mr. Dacre called upon Mr. Buchanan and said that so far as he was concerned he should not insist upon carrying on her engagement after the six weeks, but would accept a fortnight’s notice. Her husband said, “But how will you do with the other actors?” and Mr. Buchanan said, “I can break the engagement in many ways. I could shut up the theatre for a night, the theatre could be transferred to me, and they could play ‘Anatomy.’” This was what was meant by want of principle.
     Re-examined: Was there any justification for saying that you prematurely left the stage on purpose?—Certainly not.
     Mr. Herbert Standing said that he had been for many years in the dramatic profession, and he played in “Alone in London” at the Olympic. He played the villain of the piece. (A laugh.)
     And my friend has suggested that you were satisfactorily disposed of?—I was disposed of in the end of the piece; I was killed. (Laughter.) He was on the stage mostly when the plaintiff was there in the part of Nan nearly the whole time. He persecuted Miss Roselle for nearly the whole of the play. He noticed no omission on her part on the evening in question. He asked Mrs. Conover the reason of the omission when the plaintiff left.
     What did she say?—Am I to use the exact words?
     I must leave that to you—I must put the question in that way.—Mrs. Conover said, “This is a pretty fine d—— thing.” (Loud laughter.) He said, “What fine thing?” and she replied, “Why, Miss Roselle walked off the stage last night with the intention of deliberately insulting Miss Jay, and to spoil the piece, and to shut up my theatre.” She said that the plaintiff had deliberately cut our part of the scene. In witness’s opinion the omission of a few words would not impair the action of the piece or the success of that particular scene. Such an omission was a thing that frequently happened.
     Cross-examined: He did not carry Miss Roselle off the stage; he dragged her, and she assisted him with her feet.
     Why did you not carry her? She is a little, light thing—(loud laughter)—and you are a fine, strong man.—Thank you. (Laughter.) It was a dangerous scene; they had to go over a bridge, and if they had fallen they would have been very seriously injured. Plaintiff realized it, and he did so too. He carried Miss Jay one night, and she was so nervous that she begged him not to do it again, and he was very glad not to do it. (Laughter.) She was not a light, little thing; she was a fine woman. (Laughter.) She did not wobble with her toes to assist him.
     Mr. Dalton Towers said he was stage manager to Mrs. Conover, and he took part in “Alone in London.” He played the part of Charles Johnson. The plaintiff’s representation of her part was simply perfect. There was not the slightest indication of weakness or ill-health in the plaintiff down to the 2nd of December. Mrs. Conover said that on a previous evening Miss Roselle had purposely cut out part of a scene.
     Mr. Leonard Boyne said that he had had considerable experience as an actor, and he was now playing the leading part in Mr. Buchanan’s play of “Sophia” at the Vaudeville. He at the Olympic played the part of John Biddlecomb in “Alone in London.” He agreed that the plaintiff’s performance of her part was simply “perfect.” It was an artistic performance. He noticed no failing in connection with the part she played, nor any imperfection.
     Mr. Kemp, in the course of some discussion, said that he should contend that the plaintiff had purposely omitted part of her scene to annoy Miss Jay.
     Mr. Percy Bell said that he took the part of Jenkinson in “Alone in London,” and he was upon the stage at the time that the omission in question occurred. He noticed no omission, and there was no confusion upon the stage, nor was the scene spoiled.
     Cross-examined: He did not think that he had said that at the time he was reading a newspaper, and did not notice what took place. His business was to hide behind a newspaper, and listen to what the two other characters were saying.
     Mr. John Tresahar took the part of Spriggins in “Alone in London.” He gave similar evidence as to the omission, as to there being no confusion upon the stage, and nothing particularly noticeable. As to the plaintiff’s acting, he thought that that was as good upon the last night as upon the first, and that was as good as it could be.
     Mr. Alfred Burnham said that he was an acting manager at the Olympic. He heard of an arrangement that Miss Jay should take the plaintiff’s part. It was said that Miss Roselle had purposely insulted Miss Jay. The performance of the plaintiff was excellent.
     Mrs. Patty Ephgraves, a dresser at the Olympic Theatre, saw the performance on the 2nd December, and noticed nothing exceptional. She saw no confusion upon the stage, no insult, and no interference with the performance.
     Mr. James Mortimer, a dramatic author and formerly editor of the Figaro, said that on November 23, 1885, he was “in front” of the theatre, and saw the performance. He thought the plaintiff’s performance admirable in every respect. He also went behind. He noticed nothing in Miss Roselle showing fatigue or anything of that sort. Mrs. Conover said Miss Roselle was not very well, and he mentioned the matter to Miss Roselle, who said she was in no way ill. He had gone behind the scenes to congratulate her upon her performance.
     Miss Annie Rose said she was an actress, and she saw a performance at the Olympic. On the 25th November she believed it was. She was married, and her real name was Mrs. Horace Neville. She certainly saw nothing in the condition or acting of the plaintiff that would tend to prejudice the performance. It was simply excellent, in her opinion.
     Mr. John Lawrence Toole said he was an actor and the manager of a theatre in London.
     You have some experience of theatrical matters and of the management of theatres?—I think so. (Laughter.)
     It does sometimes happen that there occurs the leaving out of lines by an actor?—Occasionally.
     It has happened to yourself occasionally?—Yes.
     To leave out some lines and introduce others? (Laughter.)—Yes.
     It happens in playing long parts, like Hamlet or Macbeth?—Yes.
     Mr. Kemp: Mr. Toole’s favourite characters? (Laughter.)
     Mr. Toole: Not yet. (Loud laughter.)
     Mr. Lockwood: Look at the extract from this play. The stage practice is kissing of the hand of a lady?—
“Two or three kisses of the hand;” yes, I notice it.
     It was said, “There are people coming. Good-bye; kissing her hand.”
     Looking at that piece of the dialogue, do you think it improbable that an actress might mistake to utter some of the words?—Yes; they were very similar.
     It is suggested that Miss Roselle purposely left out these lines. What effect would that, in your opinion, have upon her professional position?
     Mr. Justice Grove: That is asking a matter which the jury have to decide.
     After discussion the question was rejected.
     Cross-examined: I took the liberty of suggesting some time ago that your best jokes were always your own.—Not always; that depends upon the play.
     Are you an author as well as a player?—No, sir; I have never acknowledged that position.
     You might be, like the author of “Waverley,” reserving yourself for a future occasion?—Very likely—(laughter)—yes.
     Mr. Arthur Dacre, the plaintiff’s husband, who said in the course of his evidence that he was a medical man, spoke to an interview that he had with Mr. Buchanan on that occasion. Mr. Buchanan said that all parties had agreed to take less salaries, and unless the plaintiff consented to do so the theatre would have to be closed. Witness said his wife would not take less salary, and witness mentioned at the same time that she was enceinte. He also said that her time was so little advanced that she could go on playing for months. Before this not a single word had been said as to his wife’s incapacity for playing her part. Witness repeated that she was able to play for months, but rather than have such a matter talked about his wife would resign at a fortnight after the six weeks. Witness said that they had a guaranteed time that included the rest of the performance. Then Mr. Buchanan talked about the state of the plaintiff’s health. The witness positively denied that he had ever insulted Miss Jay in any way. He always took off his hat when he passed.
     Mr. Edward Ledger, the proprietor and editor of the Era newspaper, was called to speak to the receipt by him of a notice as to the resting of Miss Roselle; but Mr. Kemp admitted that the notice had been sent.
     This concluded the case for the plaintiff.
     Mr. Kemp then addressed the jury in opening the case for the defendant, and the further hearing was adjourned.
     Mrs. Ann Conover, the defendant, was called, on Wednesday, and said that in 1885 she was unfortunately lessee and manageress of the Olympic Theatre. She had played there “Alone in London,” and Mr. Buchanan selected the actors and actresses, whilst witness found the funds and did a lot of the work. She became personally responsible for the payment of the performers. Miss Jay suggested that Miss Roselle should perform the principal part. I suggested that Miss Jay should make an inquiry, and, in consequence of her report of that result, the engagement was entered into, and the contract was signed on Oct. 10. The part of Annie Meadows, or Nan, was a very difficult part, and required a great deal of physical exertion to play it properly. She thought Miss Roselle played the part very well, but she noticed her figure. She, however, was too matronly for the part. She had to be carried over a bridge whilst she was unconscious. She played the scene as if not unconscious. She assisted herself, to the help of Mr. Standing. She could not say if she appeared fatigued, but it was a part that would make anyone tired. She liked her very much indeed, and tried to make her comfortable; though she appeared somewhat high. She tried to make everybody comfortable at her theatre; she was afraid too much so. (Laughter.) About the middle of November she noticed her figure, and how she played her part, and she suggested that Miss Jay should make further inquiry. She, however, learnt the plaintiff’s condition from Mr. Buchanan, and was rather pained that it had not been communicated to witness. This was about ten days before the dismissal. She said to her business manager that she was making little money, and the actors ought to take half salary. This was said about a matinée. Miss Roselle was spoken to, and refused. Witness met her in a passage, and said she was sorry she had been spoken to. She got her full salary. Witness respected the plaintiff’s susceptibilities in every way, and she did not think that Miss Roselle herself had anything to do with this matter. Witness dictated a letter to her business manager on the 21st October, and she was afraid that he tried to improve upon it instead of sending just what she dictated. Mr. Dacre answered that letter. After what took place on the 24th November she was desirous of putting an end to the engagement at the end of the six weeks, because she found that Miss Roselle was unfit to play the part in her then condition. That was the only reason. She felt that she had been duped and made use of; a catspaw or a scapegoat. (Laughter.) Miss Jay made a complaint as to Mr. Dacre, and witness afterwards requested, with Mr. Buchanan, that he should not be admitted to the theatre, because his manner to witness was rude. He was afterwards admitted, but only to his wife’s dressing-room. Miss Jay, on the 2nd December, complained that the plaintiff had left out a part of a scene. Miss Jay said—
     Mr. Lockwood objected that this was not evidence.
     Witness: My dear sir, you must allow me. I am “Alone in London,” and a foreigner. (Laughter.) It is necessary for my own protection, for I am accused of slander, when I have not uttered slander.
     Mr. Lockwood: Excuse me, madam, I am not under your management yet. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Kemp: What a pity you are not! (Renewed laughter.)
     The witness, in continuation, spoke to some conversation which she was said to have had, and which she did not well remember, but, in substance, she denied having uttered any slander. She added that in the theatrical profession one never knew who were friends or enemies. (Laughter.) She could not remember the words she spoke to Mr. Standing, and she might have used the words he spoke yesterday. She was in one continual temper, because she had a great deal of worry. (Laughter.) Witness was on the 4th December served with a writ for slander, and then there was no claim for a breach of contract.
     Cross-examined: She had never managed a theatre before she took the Olympic, nor since; she had no desire. She had not acted before then, but she had played since. She had played Lady Macbeth.
     Not with Mr. Toole?—No. (Loud laughter.) She had said that she was in a continual temper at the Olympic, and no doubt she said things which in her calmer moments she would not have thought of.
     Witness said she considered that the plaintiff had entered into her service under false pretences, knowing all the time that she was enceinte. She did not volunteer any statement about the plaintiff. She spoke to Mr. Standing, who was a married man, and played with the plaintiff every night. She said to him, “Do you not think she is going to have a baby?”—(a laugh)—and he said that he did not know.
     And did you say, “What a fool you must be?” (Laughter.)—I may have done so. (Renewed laughter.) She also asked the question of married ladies as well.
     Mr. Justice Grove: You know, I suppose, that married women do sometimes have children?—Witness: Oh, certainly. I know from experience. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Lockwood: Why did you not go to Miss Roselle?—Why did she not speak to me? I treated her with the greatest courtesy, but she kept me at a distance, and treated me as a child. She treated me simply as a bank to draw her money from. (Laughter.)
     Miss Harriet Jay said that she was an actress and an authoress also—principally an authoress. She had written besides this play about eight novels. When the piece was to be brought out witness was offered the part of Nan, but she herself suggested that Miss Roselle should play the part. Soon after she came witness asked her if she was enceinte, and she said “No.” Witness said this because she did not show enough exertion in the part. She appeared so exhausted on several occasions that witness sent her some wine. Witness remembered part of the scene being left out. Miss Roselle never before omitted it. She did not behave very well to witness. She was very insulting to her on the stage. Their parts were very sympathetic, and the coldness of the plaintiff’s demeanour, and her looking at witness so disdainfully, utterly unnerved her, and prevented her from acting properly. In the particular scene that was in question she behaved most abruptly; and the part which she omitted was most important. There was no appearance of forgetfulness. Witness thought that she was angry.
     Have you any doubt that she left it out purposely?
     Mr. Lockwood objected to the question, as asking really what the jury had to decide, and it was not put.
     Witness: She afterwards made a communication to Mrs. Conover, and told her what she believed to be perfectly true—Mr. Dacre behaved rudely to her.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the next witness, said that he was the author of many works, besides plays, and he was joint author with Miss Jay of the particular piece now in question. He took part in the bringing out of the play, and also in its management, both in America and at the Olympic. He did not notice the exhibition of any fatigue on the plaintiff’s part at rehearsals. There would be naturally a reluctance to go through the laborious parts at rehearsals in the case of a lady of her position on the stage. He, however, wished her to be carried over the bridge, but he was asked by Mr. Standing not to insist upon it, as if this was done she would faint away. Witness had expected that she would be carried at night, but she was not carried. She did the best she could to assist Mr. Standing with her feet. She assisted herself up the stairs and over the bridge.
     She was supposed to be insensible?—She was supposed to be in a dead swoon, and he did not think that a person who was in a dead swoon would walk to the place of her own execution. (Loud laughter.) This sort of thing continued throughout the whole of her performance. He could not give the precise date when he became aware of the cause of this, but it was within a week, he thought, of the production of the piece. He saw Mr. Dacre. He came to witness’s room at the theatre, after the proposal to reduce his wife’s salary had been made by Mrs. Conover. There was a little shadow of truth, a little verbal truth, in the conversation spoken to as having taken place with him. He said that Mrs. Conover could readily break the engagement, and then he instanced what had sometimes been done. He said what she could do if she were dishonourable, which he knew her not to be. He never in any way suggested that she should so act. The witness added that another action had been brought against him for the same slander.
     Mr. Munsell Griffiths, a solicitor, who had been present at rehearsals and performances of the piece, said that, among others, he witnessed the performance on the 2nd of December, and she was not carried over the bridge. Further, when she was supposed to be tied to the stake, she did not scream so long or so loud as she should have done. (Laughter.)
     Three other witnesses gave some evidence as to the plaintiff’s performance in “Alone in London.”
     Mr. Henry Boss also gave some evidence. He said that he was at the theatre called acting manager, but in reality he was secretary.
     What did you call yourself?—Well, I was always there when I was called. )Laughter.) He believed that he had a conversation with Mr. Dacre, and he believed that it was in reference to the reduction of salaries all round. He could not remember that anything was said about the plaintiff leaving.
     Mr. Lockwood: Mr. Boss, you may return to your important duties.
     Witness: Well, they are important.
     This concluded the evidence for the defence, and thereupon Mr. Kemp summed up the evidence which he had presented to the jury. Mr. Lockwood, after that, replied upon the whole case.
     His lordship summed up, and the jury retired to consider the verdict.
     In half an hour they returned and said that they found that the slander was uttered, but that it did not injure the plaintiff; and as to the wrongful dismissal, they gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £190.

___

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper (23 January, 1887)

THEATRICAL SLANDER SUIT.

     In the Queen’s Bench division, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Grove and a special jury, Mrs. Dacre, better known as Miss Amy Roselle, the actress, sued Mrs. Conover, late of the Olympic theatre, to recover damages for slander of the plaintiff in her professional character, and also for wrongful dismissal.
     The defendant pleaded privilege, and also as to the contract for employment that there had been exoneration and discharge, and also recision of the contract.
     Mr. Lockwood, in opening the case, said that Miss Amy Roselle was married to Mr. Arthur Dacre, and in October, 1885, she was engaged for the run of Alone in London at the Olympic, commencing on Oct. 24, 1885; six weeks’ run guaranteed. She was to play the leading rôle, and she was to have 30l. a week. The piece could not be produced on Oct. 24, and its production was postponed until Nov. 2. Of course Miss Roselle was entitled to be paid for this time, but under the circumstances she generously accepted half salary in respect of it. The play was produced, and fell terribly flat. About the middle of November, he thought, morning performances took place, and Miss Roselle was entitled to be paid for these. Mr. Boss, the acting manager, asked her to accept, not full salary but half terms, in respect of that performance, but Mr. Dacre objected to this; and Mrs. Conover expressed regret that such an application should have been made to her, but she said that they were losing about 200l. a week. About Nov. 21 Mr. Dacre had a conversation with Mr. Boss with reference to his wife, who down to that time had played her part without any expression of dissatisfaction. He wrote to Mr. Boss, and some reference was made about the health of Mrs. Dacre, but her child was not born until March, 1886, and down to the time in question nothing had been said as to there being anything in her condition that interfered with the performance of her professional duties. Mr. Dacre having made the communication, however, the management fastened upon it to get themselves out of the financial difficulty that they were in. Mrs. Dacre continued playing until the night of December 2 the leading part of Nan, as well, as truly, and as forcibly and pathetically as she had ever played any part in her life. Unfortunately, it happened that when she on that evening went on in that rôle, there was some mistake as to her “cue.” this did not, however, affect the action of the piece at all. The next day, December 3, Mr. Martin, the solicitor to Mrs. Conover, wrote: “In consequence of your conduct last night, when I understand you purposely cut out a part of one act, and thereby seriously interfered with the proper performance of the play, I am instructed by Mrs. Conover and Mr. Buchanan to enclose you banknotes for 30l., in full discharge of your salary to the 4th inst., the date on which your engagement expires, and to request that you will not again take part in the performance of Alone in London at the Olympic theatre.” Similar statements were made at the theatre, and this constituted the libel complained of. It was not true that the engagement expired at that date, though Mrs. Dacre had made an offer to go on from that time at a fortnight’s notice, but that offer was not accepted. Now they said that her conduct entitled them to summarily dismiss her from the theatre, and the next night her part was taken by Miss Jay, who had only 10l. a week.
     Miss Amy Roselle was called and said that she had been in the profession about 16 years. Mrs. Conover expressed her regret that she had been asked to take less than her salary, and she said “In fact, you are worth all I pay you, and I do not know what the piece would be without you.” She continued, “The fact of the matter is that I am losing about 200l. a week. I am losing so much that my trustees will not allow me to continue much longer.” The witness added that her condition at that time in no way interfered with her performance. On the night of the mistake Miss Jay was playing Chickweed. Her part was to kiss witness’s hand. She then had to go to the gate, and should have stopped and said, “Oh, you will come again promptly.” Instead of stopping she mistook the first “Good-bye,” and went straight off the stage. Her omission did not in the slightest interfere with the action of the piece. Such a thing frequently happened, and no complaint was made to her on that occasion. The performance continued under Mrs. Conover’s management until Jan. 15, 1886. What witness claimed was for six weeks’ salary, 180l. There were also three matinées which were 5l. each; she had been paid for one, and she claimed for two—that was 10l., making together 190l. as special damage. During all the time that she played she satisfactorily performed her part, and she did not suffer from fatigue or any other ailment. Her son was born on March 26, 1886. No announcement was made in public as to her sudden dismissal. It came to her knowledge that Miss Jay was to take her part in the provinces.
     On Tuesday Miss Amy Roselle was cross-examined by Mr. Kemp. She said the piece was the story of a brutal husband ill-treating his wife, and in one scene he attempted to murder her.—In one scene you have to fall down and to be carried over a bridge with a view of being murdered?—No; she did not have to fall down, but to fall into Mr. Standing’s arms.—And it became his duty to carry you?—To lead her off.—Did you, instead of being carried off, trip off or walk off?—No. —Before you commenced acting in this piece did Miss Jay tell you you could not perform the part as it required so much physical exertion, and that in consequence of your state of health?—Certainly not. Witness did not assure her that there was no truth in it. Her child was born on March 26. She had engaged herself for the run of the piece. She had not formed any intention when she should cease playing, for she was perfectly well as long as she played. She did not complain of or sneer at Miss Jay.
     Did she complain of the insulting way in which she was treated by your husband?—I have no knowledge of that. She had not heard it from anyone else. Her husband required that he should be in the theatre when she was playing. Was he admitted upon the condition that he should keep himself to your dressing-room?—He was admitted, I do not know upon what condition.
     Did you not inquire?—I was not on speaking terms with Mrs. Conover. She had caused a very unpleasant letter to be written to witness.
     That of November 21?—Yes. It was two nights after she had refused to act unless her husband was admitted. She was very much annoyed at getting that letter. It was rude.
     What was the rudeness in that letter?—In saying that she was not doing justice to the part. The expression was “not thereby further to jeopardise the success of the play.”
     Your husband wrote to Mrs. Conover as to that “gross, coarse, and indelicate letter I received last night, which has dispelled the illusion, as I am sure that there is no other manager that could have dictated it.”—Who was the person referred to as “contemptible enough?”—Mr. Boss, she supposed.
     Did you not consider that rude?—No; not under the circumstances. She knew of the letter before it was sent.
     Your husband also said, “I shall, however, be delighted when the time comes to take my wife away from an engagement where such utter want of principle is shown.”—That referred to a conversation her husband had with Mr. Buchanan.
     What was the want of principle?—Mr. Boss had asked her husband whether she would go on acting after the six weeks at a smaller salary, and Mr. Dacre called upon Mr. Buchanan, and he said that as far as she was concerned he should not insist upon carrying on her engagement after the six weeks, and would accept a fortnight’s notice. He added, “But how will you do with the other actors?” Mr. Buchanan said, “I can break the engagements in many ways. I could shut up the theatre for a night. It could be transferred to me, and they could play ‘Anatomy.’” This was what was meant by “utter want of principle.” She did not know that it was in consequence of her husband insulting Miss Jay that he was refused admission to the theatre. She did not ask; she was so indignant. On Nov. 19, 1885, she was advertised as “resting,” but that was not on account of ill-health.
     Re-examined: She wrote to Mr. Ledger, of the Era, correcting the announcement that had been made.
     Is there any justification for saying that you went off the stage too early on purpose?—Certainly not.
     You have your own professional reputation to consider and look to?—I should not have dared to do so, even if I had been malicious enough to have thought of it. Mrs. Conover never said anything about witness’s condition before her manager wrote. Witness did not herself know what was her condition when she entered into the engagement.
     Mr. Herbert Standing said that he played in Alone in London at the Olympic. He was upon the stage when the plaintiff was on the stage in the part of Nan nearly the whole of the time. He persecuted Miss Roselle through nearly the whole of the play (laughter). He observed that she ceased to appear there, and he asked Mrs. Conover the reason of the change when the plaintiff left.—What did Mrs. Conover say?—Mrs. Conover said, “This is a pretty fine —— thing” (loud laughter). I said, “What fine thing?” and she replied, “Why, Miss Roselle walked off the stage last night, with the intention of deliberately insulting Miss Jay, and to spoil the piece, and to shut up my theatre.” She also said that she had deliberately cut out part of a scene. In witness’s opinion the omission of a few words would not impair the action of the piece, or the success of that particular scene. It was a thing that frequently happened.
     Cross-examined by Mr. Kemp: He did not carry Miss Roselle off the stage. He dragged her off, and she assisted him with her feet. Why not carry her. She is a little, light thing—(loud laughter)—and you are a fine strong man?—Thank you (laughter). It was a dangerous scene to play in. He carried Miss Jay one night, and she was so nervous that she begged him not to do it again, and he was very glad not to do it (laughter).
     Mr. Dalton Somers, Mr. Leonard Boyne, Mr. Percy Bell, and Mr. John Tresahar said they considered Miss Roselle’s performance in Alone in London perfect.
     Mr. Alfred Burnham said he had been an acting manager at the Olympic, originally nominated by Mr. Buchanan. He should think that this was about the end of November, 1885. He heard that Miss Roselle was willing to accept a fortnight’s notice after the expiration of the six weeks, and he told Mrs. Conover this. The plaintiff was willing to agree to this provided that her husband was treated properly by being admitted to the theatre. He heard it said in the presence of the defendant that there was an arrangement that Miss Jay should take the part of the plaintiff. It was also said that Miss Jay felt insulted by Miss Roselle, and that it was done on purpose. The performance of the plaintiff was excellently done.
     Mrs. Patty Ephgraves was employed as a dresser at the Olympic theatre, and she saw the performance of December 2, and noticed nothing exceptional in it. She saw no confusion upon the stage, no insult, and no interference with the performance. Miss Roselle acted her part as well as upon the first night. Afterwards Mrs. Conover said of Miss Roselle, “That woman is not going to play.” Witness inquired whom she meant, and she said, “Miss Roselle.” She said that witness must get the room ready for Miss Gourley, who would play Miss Jay’s part, and that Miss Jay would take Miss Roselle’s part. After the performance Mrs. Conover said to Miss Jay, “You play the part capitally; even better than that other woman did, and you ought to have played it from the first night.” Some gentlemen who were at he theatre expressed their surprise that Miss Roselle did not appear, and Mrs. Conover said, “Oh no; she cut Miss Jay out last night purposely; and crabbed her” (laughter). Miss Jay did not appear “crabbed” when this was said to have happened. On one occasion witness, in reply to Mrs. Conover, had said that Miss Roselle was well, and she had not heard her complain of anything. Mrs. Conover and witness had a “row” (laughter), and she left.
     Mr. James Mortimer said on Nov. 23, 1885, he was “in front” of the theatre and saw the performance. He thought the plaintiff performed admirably in every respect.
     Miss Annie Rose, Mrs. Horace Neville, Mrs. Louisa Stirling, and Mrs. Lilly Hawkins gave evidence as to the excellence with which Miss Roselle played.
     Mr. John Laurence Toole said he was an actor, and the manager of a theatre in London.—It does sometimes happen that there is a leaving-out of lines by an actor?—Occasionally.—It has happened to yourself occasionally?—Yes.—To leave out some lines and introduce others (laughter)?—Yes.—It happens in playing long parts like Hamlet or Macbeth?—Yes.—Mr. Kemp: Mr. Toole’s favourite characters (laughter).—Mr. Toole: Not yet (laughter).—Mr. Lockwood: Looking at the extracts from this play and that part of the dialogue referred to as omitted, do you think it improbable that an actress might mistake to utter some of the words?—Yes, they are very similar.—It is suggested that Miss Roselle purposely left out these lines. What effect would that, in your opinion, have upon her professional position?
     Mr. Justice Grove: That is asking a matter which the jury have to decide.
     After discussion the question was rejected.
     Cross-examined: I took the liberty of suggesting some time ago that your best jokes were always your own?—Not always—that depends upon the play.—Are you an author as well as a player?—No, sir; I have never acknowledged that position.—You might be, like the author of “Waverley,” reserving yourself for a future occasion?—Very likely (loud laughter).
     Mr. Arthur Dacre, the plaintiff’s husband, who said in the course of his evidence that he was a medical man, spoke to an interview that he had had with Mr. Buchanan. On that occasion Mr. Buchanan said that all parties had agreed to take less salaries, and unless the plaintiff consented to do so the theatre would have to be closed. Witness said that his wife would not take less salary, and mentioned at the same time that she was enceinte. He added that she was able to play for months, but rather than have such a matter talked about his wife would resign at a fortnight after the six weeks. The witness positively denied that he had ever insulted Miss Jay in any way.
     This concluded the case for the plaintiff.
     Mr. Kemp then addressed the jury, in opening the case for the defendant, and congratulated them that they had at length got to the end of the first act in this domestic drama. He submitted to his lordship that what was said to be slanderous was really a privileged communication, the words having been spoken to persons who were engaged with the defendant in carrying on a particular business, and persons to whom the defendant was almost bound to communicate it. He asserted that Miss Roselle was not in December in a fit state of health to perform ‘so onerous a part as that of “Nan.”’ The plaintiff certainly was not in a condition in which she was fit to be dragged about the stage and to undergo great physical exertion. She, in fact, tripped off the stage instead of being dragged off by “the accomplished villain” who had appeared before them. Complaints were made of this, but still she was not dismissed for it. She was dismissed because she omitted wilfully part of one scene for the purpose of annoying Miss Jay. He asked the jury to exercise their common sense upon that matter. The plaintiff was at the time becoming annoyed by Miss Jay; the omission spoilt Miss Jay as to a very good bit of acting, and the best of women would become extremely cat-like upon occasions (laughter). He put it to the jury that whatever amount of jealousy there might be among women outside, there was even more among women in the theatre. Mr. Dacre had previously annoyed Miss Jay in the course of her work, the plaintiff was about to leave the theatre and all this gave rise to the exhibition of a fit of spite against Miss Jay. If Mrs. Conover had desired to get rid of the plaintiff she could have done so by giving a fortnight’s notice; but she did not avail herself of this opportunity, and therefore there could hardly have been this desire. The annoyance of the plaintiff and her husband was perfectly apparent, and he asked the jury to assume that they would be willing to put that annoyance into action in the way which he had suggested.
     On Wednesday Mrs. Ann Conover, the defendant, was called, and said that in 1885 she was unfortunately the lessee and manageress of the Olympic theatre. She thought Miss Roselle played her part in Alone in London very well, but she was too matronly for the part. After what took place on the 24th of November she was desirous of putting an end to the engagement as the end of six weeks, because she found that Miss Roselle was unfit to play in the part in her then condition. That was the only reason. She felt that she had been duped and made use of as a catspaw or a scapegoat (laughter). Miss Jay made a complaint as to Mr. Dacre, and afterwards the witness requested Mr. Buchanan that he should not be admitted to the theatre. He was afterwards admitted, but only to his wife’s dressing-room. Miss Jay on the 2nd of December complained that the plaintiff had left out a part of a scene. Miss Jay said——. —Mr. Lockwood objected that this was not evidence.—The Witness: My dear sir, you must allow me; I am “alone in London” and a foreigner (laughter). It is necessary for my own protection, for I am accused of slander where I have not uttered slander.—Mr. Lockwood: Excuse me, madam, I am not under your management yet (laughter).—Mr. Kemp: What a pity you are not (laughter)!—The witness, in continuation, denied having uttered any slander.—Cross-examined: She had never managed a theatre before she took the Olympic, nor since. She had not acted before then, but she had played since. She had played Lady Macbeth, but not with Mr. Toole (laughter). She was in a continual temper at the Olympic, and no doubt she said things which in her calmer moments she would not have thought of. She became inclined to stop the piece, but Mr. Buchanan wished it to go on. The performance did not pay. She considered that the plaintiff had entered into her service under false pretences. She treated Miss Roselle with the greatest courtesy; but she treated the witness simple as a bank to draw her money from.
     Miss Harriet Jay said that she was an actress and an authoress also. When the piece was to be brought out the witness was offered the part of Nan; but she herself suggested that Miss Roselle should play that part. Soon after Miss Roselle came the witness asked her if she was enceinte, and she said, “No.” The witness said this because she did not show enough exertion in the part. She appeared so exhausted on several occasions that the witness sent her some wine. When the witness afterwards asked the plaintiff the question again she admitted it. The witness remembered part of the scene being left out. Miss Roselle never before omitted it. She did not behave very well to the witness. She was very insulting to her on the stage. Their parts were very sympathetic, and the coldness of the plaintiff’s demeanour, and her looking at the witness so disdainfully, utterly unnerved her, and prevented her from acting properly. Mr. Dacre behaved rudely to her.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan said that he was joint author with Miss Jay of the piece now in question. He did not notice the exhibition of any fatigue on the plaintiff’s part at rehearsals. He wished her to be carried over the bridge; but he was asked by Mr. Standing not to insist upon it, as if this was done she would faint away. She assisted herself with her feet up the stairs and over the bridge. She was supposed to be in a dead swoon; and he did not think that a person who was in a dead swoon would walk to the place of her own execution (laughter). This sort of thing continued throughout the whole of her performance.
     Mr. Mansell Griffiths, a solicitor, who had been present at rehearsals and performances of the piece, said that among others he witnessed the performance on Dec. 2nd, and Miss Roselle was not carried over the bridge. Further, when she was supposed to be tied to a stake, she did not scream so long nor so loud as she should have done (laughter).
     Mrs. Frank Sutherland said that she witnessed the plaintiff’s performance, and she spoke to Mrs. Conover as to the personal appearance of Miss Roselle.
     Arthur Hider, late prompter at the Olympic, proved that Miss Roselle was not carried over the bridge by Mr. Standing. She assisted herself on the tips of her toes.
     Frank Harrison, assistant prompter, gave evidence of the omission by Miss Roselle.
     Miss Edith Francillon, sister of the novelist, deposed to seeing Miss Jay play Annie Meadows, and she was carried over the bridge.
     Mr. Henry Boss, secretary and treasurer at the Olympic, spoke to having had a conversation with Mr. Dacre about a reduction of his wife’s salary.
     Mr. Kemp then summed up the case for the defendant. He contended that if Mrs. Conover did make use of the words constituting the alleged slander, they were uttered bonâ fide and without malice. The dismissal, he submitted, was due to Miss Roselle’s own conduct throughout, and from the want of fairness with which she treated Mrs. Conover.
     Mr. Lockwood, in replying upon the whole case, answered the question, What damage had the plaintiff suffered? by pointing out that if the verdict was for the defendant it would stamp Miss Roselle as a lady who had been guilty of conduct which rendered her a disgrace to her profession. Pointing out what he considered to be the weakness of the defendant’s case, Mr. Lockwood remarked that he could fancy her counsel saying, in consultation, “I will try and get you off with a fortnight”—(laughter)—meaning a fortnight’s wages.
     Mrs. Conover (who occupied a chair at the back of the jury box) excitedly exclaimed, “He never spoke to me at all.”
     Mr. Lockwood: Ah, that temper (laughter)! [Mrs. Conover here hurriedly pushed her way out of court.] I am glad, gentlemen, I was not in that management.
     The learned counsel having concluded his speech, the judge summed up.
     The jury, after half an hour’s absence, found that the slander was uttered, but that it did not injure the plaintiff. As for the wrongful dismissal, they found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed—190l.

_____

Back to Alone in London In Court