|
ALONE IN LONDON IN COURT One noticeable difference between Colonel Sinn’s American production of Alone in London and the English version at the Olympic Theatre is the fact that the former made a star out of Cora Tanner, who played Annie Meadows, the hapless heroine of the piece. In 1885 Colonel Sinn had acquired the American rights to the play from Buchanan for two years and Cora Tanner was still being tied to the post as the sluice gates opened in March, 1888. Amy Roselle, the original Annie Meadows of the Olympic Theatre only lasted a month. Harriett Jay then took over the part. For the full story of Amy Roselle’s dismissal, and further ‘behind the scenes’ information about the Olympic Theatre production of Alone in London, we have this account from The Times of an 1887 court case (by the way enceinte means pregnant - I had to look it up so I thought I’d save you the bother). The Times (Wednesday, 19 January, 1887 - p.3) HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before MR. JUSTICE GROVE and a Special Jury.)
ROSELLE V. CONOVER. Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Henry Kisch were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Boxall were counsel for the defendant.
This was an action by a married woman (Mrs. Arthur Dacre), who is an actress known as Miss Amy Roselle, against a theatrical manageress for slander, wrongful dismissal, and arrears of salary involving a breach of contract. The defendant denies the publication and pleads as to the contract exoneration and rescission. The case appeared to excite considerable interest, as the court was densely crowded in every available corner; among those present were many eminent members of the theatrical profession. After some difficulties as to getting a jury were overcome, for only eight special jurors appeared in the box, and the remaining four were not easily forthcoming,
Mr. H. KISCH opened the pleadings, and
Mr. LOCKWOOD stated the plaintiff’s case. He said the plaintiff complained of serious injuries and slander on her professional reputation; that she had wilfully and purposely cut out part of an act in a piece called Alone in London, played at the Olympic Theatre from November 2, 1885 , to January 15, 1886, under the management of Mrs. Conover. Of this he gave the most graphic and humorous description, and excited a great deal of merriment by explaining theatrical terms “cue,” “understudy,” &c., of which he professed entire ignorance, and endeavouring to elicit an explanation from the Bench to which in one instance (“cue”) his Lordship acceded. Then Mr. Lockwood said in future after this able definition none of Her Majesty’s Judges would be able to say they did not understand the term. The plaintiff and her husband (Mr. Dacre) had been down in the Isle of Wight in September, 1885, when she was applied to by telegram by Mr. Buchanan to accept an engagement to play the leading rôle in the piece—that of Annie Meadows or “Nan” at a salary of £30 a week, six weeks were guaranteed, and an agreement was drawn up on October 10, 1885, embodying these conditions. Owing to some hitch in the scenery the production of the piece was delayed until November 2, and the plaintiff had generously foregone a week and a-half’s salary. The play, though written by Mr. Buchanan and Miss Jay, did not prove a success, indeed, it fell terribly flat. And as the loss on the undertaking was, it was alleged, some £200 a week, Mr. Boss, the defendant’s business manager, proposed that the plaintiff should accept half salary, as many of the other artists had done the same. This the plaintiff declined to do. Shortly after this the plaintiff discovered she was enceinte, but this circumstance had been cruelly and indelicately fastened on by the management in order to get rid of the plaintiff and prevent a financial failure. In fact, her condition did not in the least interfere with the plaintiff’s acting, for her baby was not born till March 28, 1886. Mr. Boss, however, wrote a harsh letter saying the plaintiff ought not to have taken the engagement, as she knew her state and could not stay; that Mrs. Conover, had she known it, would never have ratified the agreement. To this Mr. Dacre replied that he quite dissented from all this, but, if the defendant wished, his wife would take a fortnight’s notice and retire after the six weeks. He was naturally indignant at this, and had written some angry letters, which were taken up by Mr. Buchanan and the defendant, who commenced actions thereon, but then thought better of it and withdrew and had to pay the costs. Meanwhile, Miss Jay, behind the back of the plaintiff, had been rehearsing the part of “Nan,” whereas she had first played the subsidiary part of “Tom Chickweed, the London waif.” And it was evident that the management wished to get rid of Miss Roselle, who continued to perform her part as forcibly and as pathetically as ever she did down to December 2, 1885. On that evening, through pure inadvertence, as often happened, the plaintiff had omitted a few unimportant lines with Miss Jay (Tom Chickweed) through mistaking the “cue.” But it was wholly immaterial and did not interfere with the action or progress of the piece. No notice was taken of it at the time, but next day the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant’s solicitor enclosing her £30 and saying her engagement was terminated on December 4, and she did not act there again. The plaintiff had made an offer to retire on the 5th, but that was not accepted. Miss Jay then assumed the part of “Nan” at a salary of £10 a week instead of £30. Now the remarks of the defendant that the plaintiff had knowingly cut out portions of an act in order to spoil the piece and injure Mr. Buchanan were wholly gratuitous, and made to Mr. Herbert Standing and several other people. Under these circumstances the plaintiff sought for damages for the slander and the breach of contract as above set out.
Miss Amy Roselle, called, said she was Mrs. A. Dacre, and about 16 years in the profession, taking many leading parts in London. In September, 1885, she was in the Isle of Wight with her husband. She received several telegrams from Mr. Buchanan offering an engagement and £30 a week salary. She got an agreement in writing from Mr. H. Boss, and her part on October 4th and 10th. The piece, Alone in London, opened on November 2. I accepted, she said, half a week’s salary before that. I played Nan (Annie Meadows) from that date to December 2 every night. The defendant came often to my dressing room during the run of the piece. She said Buchanan was running her into all sorts of unnecessary expense, and she was losing much money, so much as to compel her to close the piece. I think I gave satisfaction to the management up to November 20; there were no complaints. Boss then wrote me a letter. He was business manager. I had acted in a matinée on the 14th. He asked me to take half salary for that performance. The defendant said on that evening (20th) she was sorry I was asked to take it, as I was worth all she gave me for the piece. The defendant said “The fact is I am losing near £200 a week, and there was only £15 in the house at the matinée. I have already lost, and am losing, so much that my trustees will not allow me to continue much longer the management of the theatre.” There was a conversation the same evening between my husband and Boss, in consequence of which I requested my husband to write a letter on November 21 to Boss. On November 28 a letter was handed to me from Boss. It stated that I must have been aware of my condition. If Mrs. Conover had known she would not have ratified the contract. I had experienced no detrimental effects so far from the piece I was playing. Up to this time no one at the theatre was acquainted with my condition. Afterwards I had reason to complain, and I sent for Mr. Buchanan, one of the management. December 2 was the last night I played. Two of the cues, as to kissing hands in the scene were the same. I was on stage with Tom Chickweed then. We had to wish each other “good bye,” and he kissed my hand. I then had to go to the gate, and should have stopped and said, “Oh, you will come again, promise.” I mistook the first “good bye” for the second, and went straight off the stage.
To the JUDGE.—Kissing my hand was the cue to exit. No actual result ensued from the omission of a few lines. It did not interfere in my judgment with the action of the play in the smallest degree. It frequently happens that words are omitted in a performance. No complaint was then made of my so doing. Next day I received the letter, December 3, from Martin. (The letter was read.) It is not true that I purposely omitted the words in question on that night. I answered the letter next day. (Letter read.) The play ran till January 15. I claim salary to that date, and as special damage, £180, at £30 a week. I claim £10 for a matinée. I performed my part satisfactorily at that performance and all through the run of Alone in London. My son was born on March 28, 1886. No explanation was given to the public of my sudden dismissal from the theatre. After my dismissal I advertised in the Era for an engagement as I usually do.
Cross-examined by Mr. KEMP, Q.C.—Before I undertook the part in this performance the play was read to me by Miss Jay. I knew the story, that of a brutal husband who tries to murder his wife. I did not know Mrs. Conover wished Miss Jay to play my part, but she (Miss Jay) wished me to do it. There is a moderate amount of physical exertion in it, and I fell into Mr. Standing’s arms. Miss Jay did not tell me my condition would prevent my playing the part. I did not deny the rumour of my state. I meant to have played as long as I was able. I was quite well, and I did not faint away at rehearsal. My husband did not suggest engaging another lady till I was better. I did not complain of Miss Jay or sneer at her. She did not complain of my husband’s insulting conduct towards her. My husband was forbidden to come inside the theatre. I did threaten not to play if he were refused admittance. He was then admitted, but I did not know if he was to confine himself to my dressing room. I was not on speaking terms with the defendant then. She caused an unpleasant letter to be written on November 21. I was much annoyed at it. I thought it very rude to hint I was spoiling the play; it said “jeopardize the success of the play.” I knew I was doing my work properly. I knew my husband wrote an angry letter to the defendant on November 22. I showed the defendant’s letter to Mr. Hare. Mr. Dacre also wrote to Mr. Buchanan complaining of a coarse and insulting letter being written to me. It mentioned a very delicate matter in a very coarse way. I consider the whole letter a foul insult. I will not assume that my condition could possibly interfere with my proper performance of the piece. My indignation had not then passed away, nor has it now. (Laughter.) The “cue” is sometimes a piece of “business” and sometimes the ending words of a sentence. An advertisement saying I was “resting” (a well-known term in the profession) was published in the Era without my consent. I complained of it to the editor, and it was altered. I should have taken another engagement if one had been offered me before March, 1886.
Re-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD.—Most of the engagements at the theatres are made in December before Christmas.
Mr. KEMP.—I intend to say the lady omitted the lines purposely.
Mr. JUSTICE GROVE.—You cannot ask the jury to find it if you have not pleaded a justification.
The witness.—It is quite untrue I omitted the lines on purpose. Even if malicious enough to have thought it, I would not have dared to do it. I had played with Miss Jay for 14 days though indignant with her. We have sometimes to kiss on the stage when we don’t like people. (Laughter.) There was no suggestion that I had left the stage in an improper or unusual manner. The defendant never suggested I knew of my condition when I entered into the engagement, and, in fact, I did not know it then. Buchanan had told me they had spent so much money that even if the theatre was crowded it could not pay. I think they meant to try and induce me to reduce my salary after a short time. The whole management was unusual. The defendant was in and out of the theatre, but Buchanan managed everything. There may be some rude expressions in my husband’s letters. Mr. Buchanan made some extraordinary suggestions as to breaking the engagement to my husband; i.e., closing the theatre for a night; transferring the management from Mrs. Conover to himself; giving a matinée. Mr. Dacre was not excluded because he stood in the passage and insulted Miss Jay. I was indignant with the entire management, Mrs. Conover, Miss Jay and Mr. Buchanan. I never heard the lines omitted bring down the gallery at any previous performance. I had always repeated the lines before. I certainly did not “bounce off” the stage. It was a long leave-taking scene, and we said good-by to each other. I allowed her to kiss my hand then as part of the “business.” They certainly did not applaud Miss Jay at that scene. I thought Mr. Boss’s suggestion very indelicate. There was no suggestion that my playing in the piece would injure the play until I had refused to play at half salary. After these letters my husband was refused admission to the theatre. I connected the two circumstances together. I was never compelled to alter my “business” as to being carried or dragged off the stage, nor was any fault found with me in that respect.
Mr. Herbert Standing called, said.—I am an actor and played in Alone in London, playing the villain. I was “disposed of” satisfactorily at the end of the play. (Laughter.) I played the whole run of the piece; I “persecuted” Miss Roselle the whole piece through; there was nothing wrong in her acting on December 2. I observed no omission or interference or confusion on the stage. She played in the most artistic and finished manner from first to last. I knew it was intended Miss Jay should play the plaintiff’s part with me in the provinces; she had rehearsed it with me and other principals “to oblige the management” in London. The defendant on December 3 said, “This is a pretty fine thing.” I said “What fine thing?” She said, “Why Miss Roselle walked off the stage with the intention of deliberately insulting Miss Jay; to spoil the piece and shut up my theatre!” She said the plaintiff had cut out part of the scene. I said I did not think the plaintiff was capable of it, and was sorry to hear she thought so and went on to the stage. She repeated this several times. The omission would be quite trivial and would not impair the success of the scene. They are often made in playing. The defendant said the piece was not paying and she was losing money. I accepted a reduced salary for the benefit of experience in London.
Cross-examined.—I believe and hope I am a leading actor. I appeared in every scene with the plaintiff in Alone in London. I inquired of the defendant whether the plaintiff had left. I repeated what the defendant said because I was asked. I noticed no signs of weakness or ill-health in the plaintiff, she was quite equal to being “Alone in London!” (Laughter.) I did not say to Mr. Buchanan at rehearsal “For God’s sake don’t press her to go on, or she’ll break down.” I had to drag the plaintiff off to tie her to a stake, but we mutually assisted each other. She walked off on the tips of her toes.
Mr. KEMP.—She is a light little thing?
The witness.—Pardon me! (Laughter.)
Mr. KEMP.—You are a tall fine man.
The witness.—Thank you. It was a dangerous scene for any one to play, for him and her, especially if in delicate health. The piece succeeded in the country and made much money when Miss Jay played the leading part. I only carried her the first night as she was so very nervous. I dragged her in the same manner as the plaintiff. She wobbled a good deal on her toes. (Laughter.) Miss Jay did not fall down. It was dangerous at the bridge because there was no bed, as is usually placed, to catch us if we fell. I played 10 years at the Criterion where there are no bridges.
Re-examined.—Miss Jay asked me to carry her across the bridge. Pieces vary in town and country as to failure or success. To “create” a part commands a much larger salary, and Miss Roselle created this part. Some of our rehearsals lasted four to six hours, sometimes till 4 a.m. with the scenes. They were irregular, as the scenes were not set. The carpenters were hammering and sawing while we rehearsed; it was very trying, I complained and nearly threw up my part in consequence of it.
Mr. Dalton Somers, defendant’s stage manager, was the next witness, and said he played in Alone in London with the plaintiff; her acting was simply perfect as “Nan,” no sign of weakness or ill-health was visible. On December 3 he was at the defendant’s office when she said the plaintiff had purposely cut out a portion of the scene, and in consequence Miss Jay would play that part that evening. I was, he said, to tell the “Waif’s” understudy. It had spoilt the scene, that is all. The plaintiff had done it purposely, she said, to insult Miss Jay. She said this several times in conversation. I declined to accept a reduced salary. I did not observe the plaintiff’s condition until I was told of it.
Cross-examined.—I generally superintend the stage and the acting of the artistes on the stage.
Mr. Leonard Boyne said he had had great experience as an actor and now played in Sophia at the Vaudeville. He played in Alone in London, and knew the plaintiff as an actress for 16 years. He was a great deal with her on the stage in Alone in London. I thought, he said, her acting of Nan up to the last artistically perfect. I noticed no failing health or ill effects up to December 2. The defendant asked me at the wings if I had noticed the plaintiff’s condition. I said I did not. She jokingly said, “What a fool you are!” The housekeeper of the theatre was there then. Omissions frequently took place, but not intentionally.
Cross-examined.—I did not know the plaintiff refused to act if her husband was excluded from the theatre. I did not know it was asserted that Mr. Dacre had insulted Miss Jay. They said he was officious at the theatre.
Re-examined.—This was a week or so before the plaintiff left the theatre; that the plaintiff refused to come down and act.
Mr. Percy Bell, who acted Jenkinson in Alone in London and was on the stage at the time of the alleged omission, said he had not noticed it. There was no confusion nor was the scene spoilt. The plaintiff’s was a very fine performance; no trace of failing health or fatigue. He had been asked to accept a reduced salary by the management.
Cross-examined.—He was reading a paper (the Daily Telegraph) when the alleged omission was going on, and he had not told Miss Jay that he had not noticed anything. He would have noticed anything obviously wrong or any confusion.
To the Jury.—The plaintiff’s exit was my cue. There was no interruption in following on in the action of the play.
Mr. John Tresabar played Spriggins, a lively part, in Alone in London, and watched the performance from the wings on December 2. He noticed nothing particular then; no confusion or interference with the play. The plaintiff’s acting was quite as good as on any previous occasion. It was a powerful performance; fine, full of pathos and vigour.
Cross-examined.—It would require a good deal of physical exertion. He was at the second wing on the O. P. side. He was not aware that any of the scene had been omitted.
Mr. Burnham said he was one of the two acting managers at the Olympic. About the end of November, 1885, he told the defendant that the plaintiff was willing to accept a fortnight’s notice after the six weeks provided her husband was treated properly and admitted to the theatre. He thought Miss Jay felt annoyed and insulted at Miss Roselle. She was, they said, to be got out of the theatre. He thought her performance was excellent in the piece.
Cross-examined.—I cannot give you the exact words used about getting Miss Roselle out of the theatre. I had an unpleasant dispute with Mr. Buchanan. He treated me very badly; he sold the piece. I do not know if he took out a warrant against me. I did not bolt from it. I did not tell Buchanan I had sold the piece for £250 when I had got £350 for it. I do not know if I have the telegram he sent. After a lot of fuss the charge was withdrawn and apologized for. I would not remain at the theatre because Buchanan was so “beastly mean.” It is a well-known trait in his character, though he is a very clever author. It was through my exertions that the piece was a success. I ran it for 100 nights. I should be sorry to have anything more to do with Mr. Buchanan. I came up to town I think and started a dramatic agency. I should be very pleased to see you there.
Mr. KEMP.—Frankly, I should not be pleased to see you. (Laughter.)
Re-examined.—I had no warrant or any writ served on me. A summons was taken out but withdrawn.
Mrs. Ephgraves said she was housekeeper at the Olympic and the plaintiff’s dresser. She left on her own notice. She was on the stage during the scene complained of on December 2, but observed nothing exceptional; no confusion or insult or interference with the action. The plaintiff acted then as well as ever. The defendant said in the kitchen, “That woman is not going to play.” I, said witness, asked who? She said, “Miss Roselle.” I was to get the room ready for the understudy. The defendant complimented Miss Jay and said she ought to have played it from the first. She said Miss Roselle had “cut” Miss Jay purposely and “crabbed” her the night before to some gentlemen in the passages. I heard the conversation before December 2 that Mrs. Conover asked Mr. Boyne if he knew the plaintiff was going to have a baby. He said, “No.” She said, “What a fool you are!” Mrs. Conover asked me if Miss Roselle was well. More than once I said “Yes.” I left Mrs. Conover on January 1, 1886. We had a row. Mrs. Conover asked me to stay, and said she would raise my money from 12s. to £1.
Cross-examined.—The row between us was about dusting a piano, which was no part of my duty to do. I did not tell Mrs. Conover that I had noticed Miss Roselle was in the family way. I did dress her for the performances, but I had observed nothing.
James Mortimer, examined, said,—I am occasionally a dramatic critic and late editor of the Figaro. On November 23 I was in front. I thought Miss Roselle played admirably. I saw no sign of ill-health. Mrs. Conover told me Miss Roselle was not very well. I went behind the scenes and asked Miss Roselle about it. She said she was not at all ill. I did not know of any dispute at that time between her and the management.
Cross-examined.—I do not think the nature of the illness was indicated to me. The part required much physical exertion to play it properly.
Miss Annie Rose (Mrs. Horace Neville) said,—I witnessed the performance of Nov. 25, and I noticed nothing in it indicating fatigue or ill-health. I thought it excellent.
Mrs. Stirling, also an actress, said,—I saw the piece played about two or three weeks after its production. I saw no sign of ill-health or fatigue in Mrs. Dacre’s performance.
Mrs. Hawkins spoke to the same effect.
Mr. J. L. Toole, examined, said that dropping lines on the stage was by no means unusual. It had happened to himself. He had also at times introduced lines which were not in the play. (Laughter.) (The lines which had been left out by Miss Roselle were here pointed out to the witness.) In his judgment the mistake was a very natural one, owing to the similarity of the cues.
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—Speaking as a manager, would you not regard it as a serious accusation that a lady in Miss Roselle’s position should be accused of purposely omitting the lines in her part?
Mr. KEMP objected to this question, and
The learned JUDGE ruled that it was inadmissible.
Mr. John Hare, of the St. James’s Theatre, gave evidence to the same effect as Mr. Toole; and Mr. Dacre, the husband of the plaintiff, was then called and examined. He remembered having an interview with Mr. Buchanan at the Olympic Theatre, in which he told Mr. Buchanan, with reference to an announcement which had been made, that his wife would not consent to have her salary reduced as proposed. He mentioned at the same time that his wife was enceinte, but not so as to interfere with her playing for some months. Up to this time no word of complaint had been made of her incapacity in any way. He told Mr. Buchanan that his wife would resign at a fortnight’s notice at the end of the six weeks. Mr. Buchanan replied that everybody would have to take lower salaries or go at the end of six weeks; and he said there were many ways of breaking an engagement if necessary—one being that if he paid for the guaranteed time that nullified the rest of the engagement. Witness dissented from this. Whereupon Mr. Buchanan suggested, further, that if he closed the theatre for one night that would be sufficient. The witness wrote to Mr. Boss the same night and received a letter in reply stating that his wife must have been aware of her condition when she signed the contract. This reflection on his wife annoyed him exceedingly, and he wrote in that spirit to Mrs. Conover and to Mr. Buchanan several letters. He never insulted Miss Jay, but the management had prevented him from entering the theatre.
Cross-examined.—It was absolutely untrue that he had insulted Miss Jay. He was excluded for a few minutes from the theatre, but afterwards re-admitted. He told his wife not to act unless he was admitted. He was much surprised at being excluded, and asking the reason, he was told Miss Jay had overheard some remarks of his the night before, and had felt much annoyed.
Mrs. Dacre, re-called, said her child, though born in March, was born prematurely. It was not expected till April.
This closed the plaintiff’s case.
Interrogatories were then put in by Mr. Lockwood.
Mr. KEMP then opened the case for the defendant, and said the secret of the action was jealousy of Miss Jay, entertained by the plaintiff. She, like every woman, and actresses in particular, formed likes and dislikes, and took no trouble to conceal them. As to the slander complained of, that was, he submitted, privileged, and even if it were not, no damage had been sustained by the plaintiff in consequence. If a high salary were paid to the plaintiff, the more rigorously should she perform her duties. Now, the omission of the lines would, it would be found, be a very serious thing, not the mere trifle it was sought to be made out. There was no ill-feeling in the mind of the defendant against the plaintiff, but she had apologized to the plaintiff for the request to take a reduced salary. But she saw the plaintiff was not in a physical state to perform this arduous and onerous part, having to be dragged about the stage. It was childish to speak of her as capable of going through the exertion without grave danger to herself, as was well known to herself and her husband. But the plaintiff had denied it absolutely to Miss Jay. It was asserted that the omission of the lines was deliberate and malicious, and Miss Jay had been undoubtedly subjected to annoyance, Mr. Dacre sneering and turning his back upon her during the performance; and this led to his exclusion till he promised to confine himself to his wife’s room. It was a curious thing that when Miss Jay took the part the piece became a great success, because the actors all worked together con amore.
After some discussion as to amending the defendant’s case by adding a plea of justification on the ground of intentionally omitting the lines, the Court adjourned at the conclusion of Mr. Kemp’s address. ___ The Times (Thursday, 20 January, 1887 - p.4): (Before MR. JUSTICE GROVE and a Special Jury.)
ROSELLE V. CONOVER. Mr. F. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. H. Kisch were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Kemp, Q.C., Mr. Boxall, and Mr. C. A. Reeve appeared for the defendant.
The hearing of this case, for wrongful dismissal and slander, brought by Miss Amy Roselle (Mrs. A. Dacre) against her late manageress, was resumed to-day. The court was again inconveniently crowded in every part. The case for the plaintiff having concluded yesterday, today the evidence for the defence was adduced and the defendant,
Mrs. Conover, examined, said,—I was, unfortunately, lessee of the Olympic Theatre in 1885. When Alone in London was played, Buchanan selected the actors and took an active part, to some extent, in management; but I found the funds and did most of the work. I signed the contract and became responsible for payment of actors and actresses. Miss Jay suggested Miss Roselle to take the leading part in the play; I suggested some inquiries and then made an engagement on the reports on October 10. Nan is a very difficult part to play, requiring great physical exertion. I noticed the embonpoint of her figure, though, being inexperienced in acting, I could not presume to teach the plaintiff to play. I thought she played very nicely. In the garret scene I observed she was too matronly; she was supposed to be carried over the bridge unconscious, but she assisted herself with Mr. Standing, and I thought she seemed tired. Some hostility was exhibited towards me at the theatre, I do not know why. I always try to make people comfortable—too much so, I fear. I used to send the plaintiff refreshments to please her. It is a way I have to the leading actresses. I noticed her figure grew worse as time went on. I suggested further inquiries through Miss Jay. I learnt the fact through Buchanan; it pained me very much. It was ten or 14 days before the dismissal. I asked her to take a reduction at a matinée. I said afterwards I was sorry she had been approached on the subject. I could barely afford her full salary, but she got it. I respected her susceptibilities in every way. Mr. Boss wrote an answer at my dictation, but he tried to improve on it, I am afraid. I wished to terminate her engagement at the six weeks because her condition rendered her incapable of performing that arduous part. I felt I had been duped and made use of as a cat’s-paw or a scapegoat. I would not have engaged her if I had known of her condition. Mr. Dacre, I thought and felt, made all the mischief with Mr. Buchanan. Miss Jay complained of his conduct to me. I felt I was treated like a child, and suggested he should be excluded from the theatre, or, if admitted, confined to his wife’s dressing-room. Miss Jay complained on December 2 that Miss Roselle had left out part of her lines. I directed a letter to be written on December 3. I may have made a statement to Mr. D. Somers, repeating what Miss Jay told me. It was as manageress of the theatre. I may have spoken to Mr. Standing in the passages, where he often was. One never knows whether one has friends or enemies in the theatrical profession. I was in one continual fit of temper all that time, as I had a deal of worry. I may have said what Standing and Mrs. Ephgraves said I said. She said she observed, when dressing, “one of those coming events which cast their shadows before them.” (Laughter.) The first writ against me was for slander.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Buchanan managed the theatre after January 15, 1886. It was my first and only venture in that line. I had acted en amateur before, and I have played Lady Macbeth, not with Mr. Toole. (Laughter.) Buchanan had a room at the theatre. I was glad of his experience in such matters. I was worried and out of temper. In my warmer moments I may have rapped out things that in my calmer moments I may have disapproved. I may have remonstrated with Mr. Dacre. I found that, taking one consideration with another, a manageress’s life is not a happy one. Before Boss wrote I had contemplated reducing the salaries of the company; the other members had signed for half salaries for matinées. I asked the plaintiff to do so in a very nice way.
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—I am sure you did. (Laughter.)
Cross-examination resumed.—Miss Jay got £15 a week, then reduced to £10. I caused inquiries to be made about the plaintiff before the agreement was signed. The business began to drop a fortnight or three weeks after the play began. I suggested stopping the piece. If it pleases you, Buchanan was anxious to go on. I thought it was a very good play. When there is animosity among critics one does not get justice. I persuaded myself, after conversation with Buchanan, to go on till January 15. (Much laughter.)
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—I dare say money was made in the provinces or in America, or else we should not have the pleasure of seeing you here, Mr. Kemp. (Laughter.)
Mr. KEMP.—I am afraid it is necessity that brings me here.
Cross-examination resumed.—I thought I had been imposed on. She (the plaintiff) entered into my service under false pretences to get £30, knowing she was enceinte. I did not say she had cut out part of the play, except repeating what Miss Jay had said to me. I saw no harm in speaking to Mr. Boyne as to the plaintiff’s condition. I may have said to Mr. Boyne, “What a fool you are.”
To his Lordship.—I certainly know married ladies sometimes have children.
I thought the plaintiff charming; but she was not charming to me; and kept me at a distance. Her condition was denied at first, and then I thought her state was too delicate a matter for me to mention to her.
Re-examined.—I suspected this state at rehearsal. If I had known her state I would not have engaged her for this piece. It was very dangerous for a pregnant woman to be dragged about the stage. I am a mother myself and speak from experience.
Miss Harriett Jay said she was an actress and authoress, principally the latter. She had written eight novels and was part author with Mr. Buchanan of this play. At first she was offered the part of Nan. I suggested Miss Roselle should take it. I had read the play before to Miss Roselle. In consequence of some rumours during the early part of rehearsal, I spoke to Miss Roselle. I asked her if she was enceinte. She said, “No.” I had observed in her mode of acting that she did not show enough energy in her part, which required immense exertion. During the run of the play I acted with her, and I saw her on several occasions so exhausted that I sent her wine. I observed that in the scene across the bridge she walked on tiptoe, and was not carried., Mr. Standing supporting her. At that time she was supposed to be fainting. When I took the part I fell flat on the stage and was carried. I never asked Mr. Standing not to carry me. He did carry me. During the performance of the play I spoke again to Miss Roselle about her state. I do not know the exact date, but I think a fortnight after its production. She admitted it. I remember part of the scene being left out. Up to this time Miss Roselle had never omitted it. She did not behave very well to me. She was very insulting on the stage. In a very sympathetic part she looked at me in a disdainful way, and so unnerved me. She made a most abrupt termination of the scene. The piece omitted was important to the run of the play. There was no appearance of forgetfulness. I think she was angry.
Have you any doubt about its being intentional? (Objected to.)
I afterwards made communication about the matter which I believed to be perfectly true. I remember Mr. Dacre being refused admittance. I believe I had told Mrs. Conover Mr. Dacre had been rude to me. He came into the passage n ear my room and talked in a most insulting way about the management, my brother-in-law and Mrs. Conover. He remained in the passage; as I passed he rose and turned his back on me. I had waited as long as I could, but was bound to go on to the stage. This occurred again. I felt very much insulted and hurt. I told this to Mrs. Conover, and said I would rather go out of the bill than be so insulted. I communicated the facts to Mrs. Conover. I had done nothing to justify this conduct. I was understudy to Miss Roselle. Nothing peculiar took place in rehearsals. The play has been successful in the provinces, and was so in America at the same time. I played Nan in the provinces. I never said to Mr. Standing, “Do not carry me as you do Miss Roselle; drag me.” On one occasion Mr. Standing spoke to Mr. Buchanan about pressing the plaintiff to go on—”She will faint, but she will be all right at night.”
Cross-examined.—This was at the last rehearsal, I believe. I continued to play with Mr. Standing till January 15. I know nothing of him beyond playing with him. The bridge is narrow; no bed or protection if we fell. During the greater portion of the time it is not a fact that I played the part there as plaintiff had done. I altered the business in this incident. Generally, I played my part as I had conceived it. I think I directed the business at rehearsals, as I was the authoress. I never kissed Miss Roselle’s hand at the end of the scene; it is in the middle of it. This (produced) is not the prompt copy. I did not say “Good-bye” and kiss the hand at the end of the scene; it had been done, and with much more effect, in the middle. The inquiry as to Miss Roselle’s condition was at rehearsal. She complained of neuralgia. I asked, “Is there any special reason for neuralgia?” She said, “I do not know what you mean.” I said married ladies usually have children. Miss Roselle said she was no enceinte. Mr. Dacre before that night always raised his hat, but this night he did not. I think it was November 23.
Re-examined.—What day of the week was this incident?
—Monday, I believe. I did know of a letter dated Sunday, and of this letter to Buchanan having been written.
Mr. R. Buchanan, the author, examined, said he attended often at the Olympic, and had superintended Alone in London both in London and America. There was a natural reluctance, he said, in a leading lady of Miss Roselle’s eminence to go through tiring business at a rehearsal. Mr. Standing said, “Don’t press her to go on, or she’ll faint;” that was when she had to be carried over the bridge. She was not carried at night, as I thought she would be. She assisted him with her feet, though his arm was round her. She was supposed to be in a dead swoon, and could hardly walk, I should say. That continued till she left. I knew her condition soon after the production—a week or so, I think. There is some shadow of truth in what Mr. Dacre said. I said if the defendant was a dishonourable woman, which I knew she was not, she might break Miss Roselle’s engagement. I did not threaten to do it, as I knew I hadn’t the power. I don’t think I had a lawyer’s opinion on it; it was not necessary then. She performed all the scenes admirably where no physical exertion was required.
Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD, witness described the bridge scene in the play. “Nan” ought to be dragged there; it was absolutely necessary for the part. But the actors might assist each other. I remonstrated with the plaintiff and Mr. Standing about this from the beginning of the piece. Mr. Standing did not tell the truth—I say so emphatically—as to the way Miss Jay was conveyed across the bridge. The defendant found all the money up to January 15. She sometimes seemed in a financial difficulty. It is possible she may have wished the piece should stop. I did not suggest the reduction of the salaries. I was surprised when I heard it. I knew the plaintiff refused to play at a reduction. I told the defendant what Mr. Dacre had said to me as to his wife’s condition. Managers sometimes close the house for the night; if this is done as a trick to elude a contract that would be dishonourable. For instance, if an actor or actress was ruining a piece it might be done legitimately. I sent a letter to the Era; it was published unaltered as far as I know.
Re-examined by Mr. KEMP.—An action for slander has been brought against me for a similar cause as this.
Mr. Griffith, a solicitor, called, said he was a friend of the defendant and Mr. Buchanan, and had free access to the Olympic. On December 2 he noticed from the front stalls in the Thames Ditton scene the plaintiff left abruptly, and Miss Jay stayed on the stage in a bewildered way, and part of the dialogue was left out. I went behind the scenes and spoke to Miss Jay and the defendant. I heard the directions given as to the bridge scene. You could see the action of Miss Roselle’s feet up the steps then. She also moderated her screams; she had to scream for three minutes. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD.—I was not a solicitor then. I attended as an amateur at the rehearsals and noticed her feet business at one of them. Again it was apparent at performances. I went round at once after the scene. Practically, then, you were the first person that found this out?—For once your acumen has misled you, Sir. Miss Jay had found it out. You are not a Hamlet yourself?—No. I have once acted in amateur theatricals.
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—I thought you might be a tragedian. You noticed her screams grew fainter. Are you a judge of screams?—Well, they were not so rich or long; they were jerky. (Much laughter.)
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—I don’t know if my friend would like you to give us a specimen.
Mr. KEMP.—Oh, no, thank you.
Mrs. Frank Sutherland saw the play Alone in London and plaintiff as “Nan.” Each time after the first, when she played very well, she grew weaker and weaker. I spoke to my husband, who is a manager and greatly interested in theatrical matters. She observed this to the defendant. Miss Roselle was very laboured in the garret scene, and Miss Jay played it differently. Miss Roselle was dragged, not carried. Miss Jay fainted and was carried.
Cross-examined.—This matter was discussed with the defendant.
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—Supposing you and I were playing the bridge scene together, might not I drag you across? (Great laughter.)—No, it would not be correct.
Mr. JUSTICE GROVE.—That would probably bring down the house.
Mr. LOCKWOOD.—No, my Lord, it would be much more likely to bring down the bridge.
Mr. Arthur Hyder, the prompter at the Olympic, said the husband was supposed to carry “Nan” up the stairs. The plaintiff fell into Mr. Standing’s arms, not on the stage and then they went up the steps together, Miss Roselle helping herself. She went across the bridge on the tips of her toes. On December 2 I was there and remember the omission; the plaintiff left half a page unsaid and left abruptly. Miss Jay seemed amazed and did not know what to do, but she walked off. The “Good-bye” scene was omitted. The plaintiff was “letter perfect” all through her part.
This closed the case for the defence, and
Mr. KEMP addressed the jury. He stated reasons of action and he read the slanders. Now, the sting was in the word “purposely.” He contended the defendant, Mrs. Conover, had no malice in saying what she did. Such conversation was natural in a theatre, and such things should not be brought into Court. The salary of the plaintiff was very large and the defendant had a right to ask the plaintiff to render her every assistance and to expect that plaintiff should be fit to act her part. But instead the plaintiff had denied her condition, though as the wife of a medical man she must have known it at the time. The defendant had thus a grievance, but she did not make the most of it for her own sake, it is true, yet also for the sake of others. The plaintiff sneered at her as an interloper and not a regular member of the profession. She was only doing what she ought to have done. Then there was that letter of Mr. Dacre. Next the insult to Miss Jay, which caused her to say that she would rather have her name left out of the bill than stand this. So the plaintiff and her husband determined to leave and to leave all these unpleasantnesses, and as a final shot plaintiff purposely omitted the piece which gave Miss Jay a chance of applause. Evidence had been called as to what occurred. The witnesses said they had not noticed anything, which may well be, for some people could not attend to a play but preferred to talk. He asked the jury to exercise their common sense and say the plaintiff was not in a fit state to act and she knew it—that she was performing the part as she ought not to have done.
Mr. LOCKWOOD then replied on the whole case, saying he was amazed at an amendment being asked for at the 11th hour and a plea of justification requested to be added. If the jury thought the plaintiff capable of deliberately cutting out a portion of her part she was unfit to enter a decent theatre, or act there in a foremost position. This, then, as charged, was very gross professional misconduct; if convicted of it the plaintiff would suffer a grievous injury in her reputation which she had so dearly built up by long, hard, and successful labour. As to there being any professional jealousy between the plaintiff and the defendant, it was absurd. They were not rivals; not in the same way of business at all. And being a manageress with money, the defendant would be welcomed instead of given the cold shoulder. The more of such managers the better. (During some observations of the learned counsel the defendant made some angry interruptions, and Mr. Lockwood said “Ah! that temper! I am glad I am not under that management, gentlemen,” and the defendant abruptly left the Court in a semi-dramatic manner.) Mr. Lockwood continued, saying that though he did not mean to say anything offensive or give any pain, and the cue was not properly given, he hoped the jury agreed with him in thinking the defendant was right in accepting the suit. Now, all the actors, as the defendant admitted, of position, reputation and veracity, spoke to the high class of the plaintiff’s performance from first to last. If the defendant noticed the plaintiff’s condition, why should she spread it about to all the men in the company? She was entitled to such temperate damages for slander and wrongful dismissal as the jury thought right under all the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration her future professional position.
MR. JUSTICE GROVE then summed up, discussing first the question of the liability of the defendant, and two questions arose here, entirely different causes of action, that is, slander and wrongful dismissal. Now, the former was not so serious a matter as a written libel. Was the contract broken by the defendant on reasonable and proper grounds? The imputation was of deliberately cutting out a part of the play with a view to insult Miss Jay, and they would look at the circumstances of the case. But the words seemed to have been uttered by a manageress in a pet or temper to persons at the theatre, and there seemed no deliberate publication—rather a gossiping statement made to people who, he presumed, discussed each other’s concerns pretty freely. Some allowance must be made, for society could hardly go on if people were to keep such a watch over the door of their mouths. Take for instance, matters discussed at clubs, dinner tables, and private meetings. And this went very much to damages, and the defendant was very candid as to that. He could not see any privilege in the case, as there was no question of fitness or unfitness discussed as in the character of a servant. What damage had she sustained in her reputation by the slander? There was no evidence of any special damage sustained here, though she should be entitled to something on the slander. The more serious matter was—was the plaintiff incapacitated by her bodily condition from efficiently performing her part? Did she know of her being in the family way when she took the engagement. The omission of the lines was not pleaded as a good ground for dismissal. A high degree of sensitiveness seemed to have been developed among the “happy family” of actors and actresses, as if a woman giving birth to a child was a shocking thing, not to be mentioned among decent people. The bare mention of the fact produced an indignant letter from the husband speaking of it as “grossly coarse and indelicate.” Why he did not quite see. This hyper-refinement and over-delicacy sometimes defeated their own object. Was the agreement wrongly broken by the defendant? If so, the plaintiff was entitled to the £180 for the six weeks’ work and two matinées besides. But if her bodily condition was such as to prevent her properly doing her duty, then they would omit some portion of that in estimating the damages. It appeared as if the omission in the part was of some importance; but the question was—was it made maliciously, on purpose to injure the piece and insult Miss Jay? His Lordship then carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded.—What damages do you think she is entitled to in regard to injury to her reputation? Next, what damages directly following from the breach of contract, supposing that was not justified by the plaintiff’s bodily condition, which prevented her from efficiently carrying out her part?
The jury retired at 4.30 p.m., and, after an absence of half an hour returned into court.
In answer to the officer—his Lordship having left—they found that the slander was uttered, but that it did not injure the plaintiff. As to the wrongful dismissal, they found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed—£190. ___ More accounts of the trial
from The Daily News, Reynolds’s Newspaper and Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. _____ Another legal action by Amy Roselle, this time accusing Robert Buchanan of slander, arose from the same incident: The Times (2 March, 1886) ROSELLE V. BUCHANAN. This is an action of slander brought by Miss Roselle, the actress, against Mr. Buchanan, the dramatic author. The case now came before the Court on appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Field at Chambers directing the plaintiff to give particulars of the persons to whom, the times when, and places where the alleged slander was uttered.
Mr. KISCH, for the plaintiff, said that he should be quite willing to give the particulars for which the defendant asked if the latter first delivered his statement of defence, or particulars of the times when and places where the slander was uttered at once. The slander complained of was set forth in these words in the statement of claim:—“The reason why Mrs. Dacre” (meaning the plaintiff) “did not perform last night” (meaning December 4, 1885) “was that she deliberately cut out a portion of an act of Alone in London, and thereby seriously interfered with the proper performance of the play”; and, further:—“Miss Roselle had purposely cut out a scene with Miss Jay, and had walked off the stage with the intention of insulting her.” If the plaintiff were forced now to give the names of the persons to whom the slander was uttered she would be much prejudiced in her action, as the names would be those of persons now in the employ of Mrs. Conover, against whom she had brought an action for breach of contract and whose interests were, to a great extent, the same as those of the defendant. The defendant asked for particulars which the plaintiff by law could not be required to furnish. If the defendant intended to plead a justification he could not want the particulars, and if he did not intend to justify he could, after delivering his statement of defence, get the information for which he now asked by interrogating the plaintiff.
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN observed that if the defendant intended to plead privilege it was most important to him to know to whom the slander was alleged to have been uttered. The Court was informed by the Master that it was now the invariable practice at Chambers to make such an order for particulars as that for which the defendant was asking, and this, too, before the delivery of a statement of defence.
Mr. KISCH said that the present appeal was brought with a view of altering that practice, for there was no law to support it. The learned counsel cited “Eade and another v. Jacobs” (3 Exch. Div., 335).
Mr. MARTYN, for the defendant, cited “Bradbury v. Cooper” (12 Q. B. Div., 95).
The COURT dismissed the appeal, with costs. ___ The Era (6 March, 1886) THEATRICAL LITIGATION.
_____ The case of “Roselle v. Buchanan” came before Justices Grove and Stephen in the Queen’s Bench Division on Monday. It is an action brought by Miss Amy Roselle, the well-known actress, a married lady suing in respect of her separate estate, against Mr Robert Buchanan for slander. In December, 1885, the plaintiff was performing a leading part in the play entitled Alone in London at the Olympic Theatre, under the management of Mrs Anna Conover, and the slander charged was that the defendant had maliciously spoken of the plaintiff in relation to her profession as an actress the following words:—“The reason why Mrs Dacre (meaning the plaintiff) did not perform last night (December 4th, 1885) was that she deliberately cut out a portion of an act of Alone in London, and thereby seriously interfered with the performance of the play, which was stated to be the joint production of Mr Buchanan and Miss Jay, and that Miss Roselle had purposely cut out part of a scene with Miss Jay, and had walked off the stage with the intention of insulting her.” In the action, the plaintiff claims £500 as damages.
Mr Henry Kisch now appealed against an order made by Mr Justice Field at chambers, directing that the plaintiff should give particulars as to the names of the persons to whom the alleged slanderous words were uttered, and also of the places at which they were uttered, but as regarded this latter part of the order the plaintiff did not object, and was willing to give particulars as to the places, although in point of law he (the learned counsel) submitted she was not called upon to give them until the defendant had delivered his statement of defence. He submitted that the particulars asked for were not essential for the defendant in this action, there being another pending against Mrs Conover, for if he justified that slander the information asked for was within the defendant’s own knowledge, and if he did not he could interrogate the plaintiff after he had set up his defence.
Mr Justice Stephen—But suppose the defendant pleaded that the words were privileged, it would be material for him to know whether they were uttered to A or B. In the one case they might have been uttered to a partner, and would be privileged, and in the other not.
Mr Kisch said that what the plaintiff really objected to was giving the names of persons to whom the slander was uttered, as they were filling engagements at Mrs Conover’s theatre at highly remunerative salaries, and if their names were disclosed it would cause disunion between them and their employer which might lead to their dismissal.
Mr Martyn on behalf of the defendant, opposed the application, contending that according to the existing practice at chambers the defendant was entitled to the particulars asked for, and cited some cases in which Mr Justice Field had so held.
After some further argument, their lordships observed that the practice at chambers had been subjected to perpetual changes since they had sat there, but they could not set up their past experience against the practice as now upheld. They must, therefore, dismiss this appeal, the costs of which would be costs in the cause when the action was tried. Judgment accordingly. ___ The Stage (10 June, 1887 - p.13) On Tuesday in the Queen’s Bench Division the Amy Roselle v. Robert Buchanan alleged slander case came on for hearing. The plaintiff’s counsel, however, stated that the defendant had withdrawn all the statements complained of and had made an apology which was satisfactory, and had, moreover, paid all costs. In these circumstances he asked permission to withdraw the charge. This was granted, and the case came to a satisfactory conclusion. ___ Reynolds’s Newspaper (12 June, 1887) ACTIONS FOR SLANDER. On Tuesday, in the Queen’s Bench Division, before Baron Huddleston and a special jury, on the case of Roselle v. Buchanan being called on, Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., on behalf of the plaintiff, stated that it was an action brought by Miss Amy Roselle, an actress, against Mr. Robert Buchanan, to recover damages for slander. Various defences were raised on the record, but they had been withdrawn, and an apology had been made by Mr. Buchanan, which was satisfactory to Miss Roselle. The costs of the action had also been paid by the defendant, and therefore he would suggest that the record should be withdrawn. Mr. Martin, on behalf of the defendant, consented to this course, and his lordship acquiescing, the record was accordingly withdrawn. ___ The New York Times (26 June, 1887) “Cutting” has become so customary that it is a woeful injustice to charge an actor with it who has forgotten to be guilty. Robert Buchanan “only said” that Amy Roselle, who played here 15 years ago, by the way, had “cut” her lines in “Alone in London.” Amy is not friendless having last year been married to Arthur Dacre, who may be recalled as a light-weight in Kate Claxton’s company eight or nine years ago, when he seemed in doubt whether to turn actor or butcher, he having studied surgery. Buchanan was, the other day, in London, brought up for slander. He apologized to the lady as poet and dramatist should, and court closed. |
|
