|
BUCHANAN AND THE LAW Robert Buchanan found himself in court on several occasions during his life. The ‘Fleshly School’ libel case and the trials connected to Alone in London are dealt with in the relevant sections of the site, reports of the rest are presented here. The ‘Fleshly School’ Libel Case (Buchanan v. The Examiner) 1876. Lucy Brandon (Court of Bankruptcy: May and Mansell) 1882. Alone in London (Roselle v. Conover, Roselle v. Buchanan) 1887. Sophia (Buchanan v. Conservative Newspaper Company) 1888. Lady Gladys (Buchanan v. Langtry) 1889. Heredity (Greenberg v. Buchanan) 1891. The Charlatan (Stubington v. Buchanan) 1894. Buchanan’s Bankruptcy 1894. Dick Sheridan 1894. Harriett Jay’s Bankruptcy 1895. “Lucy Brandon” The Times (26 October, 1882 - p.3) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before MR. REGISTRAR HAZLITT.)
IN RE MAY AND MANSELL. The bankrupts, Charles May and Richard Mansell, were described as of Buckingham-street, Strand, theatrical managers, formerly of the Imperial Theatre, Westminster. They had been adjudicated upon the petition of Mr. Robert Buchanan, dramatic author, a judgment creditor for £76, due to him for the use of the play Lucy Brandon. This was a first meeting for the proof of debts and the appointment of a trustee, but, in the absence of a quorum of creditors, an adjournment for a week became necessary. No statement of affairs has yet been filed by the bankrupts. ___ The Times (2 November, 1882 - p.4) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before MR. REGISTRAR HAZLITT.)
IN RE MAY AND MANSELL. An adjourned first meeting for the proof of debts and the appointment of trustee was held under an adjudication against Messrs. Charles May and Richard Mansell, theatrical managers, of 7, Buckingham- street, Strand, formerly of the Imperial Theatre, Westminster. They had been adjudicated upon the petition of Mr. Robert Buchanan, dramatic author, a judgment creditor for £76. At a formal meeting an adjournment became necessary, in consequence of a quorum of creditors not being in attendance; but proofs of debt amounting to £1,285 being now admitted, the creditors appointed Mr. A. C. Harper, accountant, trustee of the estate, with a committee of inspection, Messrs. Nye and Greenwood being the solicitors to the proceedings.
No statement of affairs has yet been filed by the bankrupts. ___ The Era (4 November, 1882 - Issue 2302) A Word of Explanation. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA. Sir,—In your report of the bankruptcy of Messrs Mansell and May, late managers of the Imperial Theatre, you adopt the mistake made by the newspapers—viz., that they were adjudicated for the amount of fees due to me for performances of Lucy Brandon; and one of your contemporaries, with characteristic generosity, assumes that the bankruptcy of the managers is a consequence of these performances. Permit me to say, therefore, that the £76 12s. 9d., the amount for which these gentlemen were adjudicated, was simply a moiety of private money lent in cash previous to the production of the play; that the fate of the management had nothing to do with that production; that in addition to the losses in hard cash, I have also been mulcted in large sums on guarantees given by me to several tradesmen and to Captain Hobson, of the Aquarium; and all this in connection with a speculation in which I had no share, save as the author of a piece accepted for performance. Those who know me are aware how little disposed I am to be exacting in money matters; those who do not know me may be assured that the action I have taken was absolutely necessary, and in no sense arbitrary. A few weeks after the closing of the Imperial the same managers found money enough to take the Opera Comique, to pay down a large sum for rent in advance, and to produce a comic opera. Verb. sap. I am, &c.,
Grosvenor Club, W. ROBERT BUCHANAN. _____ “Sophia” Birmingham Daily Post (6 February, 1888 - Issue 9239) LONDON CORRESPONDENCE.
_____ LONDON, Sunday Night. ..... Mr. Robert Buchanan, poet, novelist, and dramatist, has commenced proceedings against the Evening News, a London Conservative paper, for what he considers to be a series of libels contained in some articles written by Mr. George Moore, the author of some “realistic” novels. Mr. Buchanan was therein referred to as a “literary prostitute,” and his play “Sophia” was described as his “latest and final outcome of literary uncleanliness.” When the case comes into court one of the plaintiff’s contentions will be that Mr. Moore, having asked for permission to introduce “Sophia” to the French stage, and expressed his admiration for that work, resented a refusal, and brought these charges. Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., will lead for Mr. Buchanan, who, in addition to having a libel case on his hands, and a comedy running at two London theatres, is just completing the new epic poem, “The City of Dream,” which he has had long in preparation, and which will be published immediately by Messrs. Chatto and Windus; and is engaged upon a five-act comedy-drama for the Vaudeville, to be produced when his “Fascination” is withdrawn, in which an attempt will be made to realise the life and fashionable manners of England in 1745. ___ The Times (12 July, 1888 - p.3) BUCHANAN V. CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER COMPANY. This was an action by Mr. Robert Buchanan the dramatic author, for libels upon him in his character as an author in the Evening News. The libels appeared in that paper in the form of criticisms on his play entitled Sophia, founded on the well-known novel of “Tom Jones,” on the 3d of December, 1887, and one or two following days. The terms of the criticisms were admitted to be unfitting, and it is not necessary to say more of them than that they included such expressions as “literary uncleanliness,” &c.
Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff; Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Cluer appeared for the defendants.
On the case being called on,
SIR CHARLES RUSSELL rose and said that from the nature of the case he had no doubt his Lordship would be glad to hear that he would not be troubled with the trial of the case. Appearing, as he did, on behalf of the defendants, he desired to say that the plaintiff, Mr. Buchanan, was the well-known author, and had acquired considerable reputation as a playwriter and as a poet, and was, no doubt, a man of considerable ability, and he brought the action for certain critical articles which had appeared in the paper in relation to a play he had recently written, entitled Sophia. He complained, and, as it appeared, with justice, of the tone and character of the criticisms, and the defendants felt that certain imputations were made in them which were not justifiable. The defendants, therefore, had instructed him publicly to say that they withdrew these imputations and desired to express their regret that such articles should have appeared in their paper, and he believed that his learned friend who appeared for the plaintiff was prepared to accept this retractation and to put an end to this action.
Mr. LOCKWOOD said he, on the part of Mr. Buchanan, accepted the expression of regret proffered by his learned friend. It was impossible for Mr. Buchanan to allow such criticisms to pass without notice. His learned friend had referred in terms not too strong to the reputation of Mr. Buchanan as a dramatic author, and he felt keenly that the criticisms were undeserved, especially with reference to this play, which had been performed, he believed, for 400 nights in one of the principal theatres, and which he had no reason to believe detrimental to his position as a dramatic author. He accepted the expression of regret which had been offered and desired to withdraw the record.
The record was accordingly withdrawn, and so the action came to an end. ___ The Scotsman (12 July, 1888 - p. 3) LIBEL ACTION BY MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.—In the Queen’s Bench Division, London, yesterday an action of Mr Robert Buchanan, dramatist, against the Evening News, London, for libel contained in some criticisms on a play called “Tom Jones,” was settled. The defendants now expressed regret for the language used, and Mr Buchanan accepting the apology, the record was by leave withdrawn. ___ Glasgow Herald (13 July, 1888) OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENCE.
_____ 65 FLEET STREET,
Thursday Evening. ..... The Royal Academy conversazione last night was a brilliant success, notwithstanding—perhaps, indeed, because of—its postponement from the 28th ult. on account of the general mourning. There were about 4000 guests in all, with certainly two-thirds of whom the unfortunate, though ever complaisant, President must have shaken hands. It would be impossible to enumerate all the notabilities who were present, for the great majority of people of note in the arts were to be seen, or were known to be, in one or other of the rooms. For once Mr Henry Irving failed to attract the usual mobbing, for a greater than he was present shortly before midnight—the charming Sarah Bernhardt, fresh from her harrowing adventures as “La Tosca.” Mr Browning was of course present, and apparently ubiquitous. But, indeed, with the exception of Lord Tennyson, Mr George Meredith, and Mr Ruskin, it would be difficult to say who was not at Burlington House. I noticed Mr Robert Buchanan perambulating gloomily with his sister-in-law, Miss Harriet Jay, all the more noticeable because the poet-novelist-dramatist has grown stout and comfortable-looking, if not poetic, but I suddenly remembered how his libel action against an evening paper had just been concluded—satisfactorily to his credit—hardly remuneratively to his pocket. There was a less striking show in the way of millinery than usual, and I noticed fewer uniforms and decorated coats, though there was a goodly sprinkling withal. For artistic beauty there was no dress superior to the amber-gold cashmere costume of Mrs Graham Tomson, the latest luminary upon the poetic horizon. Lady Randolph Churchill was among the admired, and so I hear, for I did not see her, was the new Duchess of Marlborough. ___ [Note: Buchanan’s letters to The Era in November, 1889 on the subject of George Moore add a little more information about the background to this case.] _____ Lady Gladys The Scotsman (21 November, 1890 - p. 6) MR BUCHANAN’S ACTION AGAINST MRS LANGTRY.—In the Queen’s Bench Division yesterday, before Mr Justice Charles and a common jury, the case of Buchanan v. Langtry came on for trial. Mr Robert Buchanan, the well-known dramatic author, sued Mrs Langtry, who is now the lessee and manageress of the Princess’ Theatre, to recover damages laid at £2000 for alleged breach of a contract to open her New York theatrical season last year with a play written by the Plaintiff. Mrs Langtry admitted making the contract, but pleaded that one of its terms was that she should not be bound to accept the drama unless it was suited to her own powers and style of acting, that the plaintiff’s play did not suit her or her company, and therefore she was not liable; further, the defendant counter-claimed for £150, which she had paid the plaintiff in respect of the play. Mr Winch, Q.C., and Mr Studd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr Le Breton for the defendant. Mr Winch having opened the case, Mr Robert Buchanan was called and narrated the circumstances that led to his writing the play of “Lady Gladys.” Mrs Langtry, he said, made complaints with reference to it. Q.—Was there anything said about the dresses in the interview you had with her? A.—Yes. She said she wished to use some attractive modern dresses, and had bought some at Paris for the purpose. It was understood that there would be four changes of dress in the course of the play. Cross-examined by Mr LOCKWOOD—Mrs Langtry asked me to produce a play in which she could use modern costumes, and in which she would have a strong sympathetic part. Q.—A dog was to appear in the first act? A.—Yes. Q.—Where do you think that Mrs Langtry was to get this very intelligent dog? A.—I think almost anywhere. If necessary, I could have sent her a dog to suit her purpose. There was no difficulty in getting a well-bred Newfoundland or retriever to follow Mrs Langtry on the stage. It was not to be killed there. Mr LOCKWOOD, having next addressed the Court, called Mrs Langtry. Q.—Is it true to suggest that you had determined to reject the play before you received it? A.—No. Q.—Is it true that you had put “Macbeth” in rehearsal? A.—We rehearsed it at New York three weeks afterwards. Q.— Is the part of Lady Gladys a “strong and sympathetic part?” Mr Justice CHARLES doubted whether this question could be put. Mr LOCKWOOD argued that it could, which Mr WINCH denied. Mr Justice CHARLES said, although he doubted whether the question ought to be put to the defendant, he would allow it to be answered. Mrs LANGTRY then asserted that the part of Lady Gladys was not a strong or sympathetic one. The hearing of the case was adjourned until today. ___ The Pall Mall Gazette (21 November, 1890 - Issue 8011) AUTHOR AND ACTRESS AT VARIANCE. THE BUCHANAN-LANGTRY DISPUTE. The theatrical dispute of the hour was brought into the Queen’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Charles, yesterday. Mr. Robert Buchanan sues Mrs. Langtry for £2,000, on the ground that she did not open the New York season of 1889 with a play he had written for her, entitled “Lady Gladys.” Mrs. Langtry pleaded that the piece was unsuited to her powers, and that therefore under a contract which had been drawn up she was at liberty to reject the piece. She further demands the return of £150 paid in respect of the play. Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd were for the plaintiff, whilst Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton appeared for Mrs. Langtry.
Mr. Winch, in his opening, detailed how Mr. Buchanan had been asked to write a play in not less than four acts, and with a leading star part for Mrs. Langtry. It was arranged that Mrs. Langtry should pay the plaintiff £150 down and. £150 on the delivery of the manuscript, the royalty being £50 a week, and the two sums of £150, being in advance of it. It was also understood that Mrs. Langtry should have the sole right of performance for three years, and that the piece was to be delivered not later than the 30th of November, 1888, and should be produced in January, 1889. The learned counsel read other correspondence with regard to the personnel of the company, &c., and said the plaintiff set to work and wrote a play. He was not so fortunate as his learned friend, who, he understood, had read a great deal of it.
Mr. Lockwood: Quite enough. (Laughter.)
Mr. Winch said the play was delivered on November 30, and plaintiff wrote complaining that if “Macbeth” were produced as announced the agreement would be broken, Mrs. Langtry replied, returning the manuscript, thinking the wrong one must have been sent to her—the play was unworthy of Mr. Buchanan and of herself.
Mr. Robert Buchanan was put in the witness-box, and there was a desperate conflict between him and Mr. Lockwood as to the exact shade of meaning certain passages in the play (read by Mr. Lockwood) were intended to bear. The question of a “learned dog,” or an alleged learned dog, was also discussed between author and counsel with animation—and amid the audible amusement of the court.
Mr. Lockwood then pointed out on behalf of Mrs. Langtry that the play was precisely what she had not stipulated for, and that she had practically parted with £150 for nothing. He regretted Mr. Buchanan’s “venomous suggestion” that Mrs. Langtry had determined to shelve the play in any case, so that she might produce “Macbeth.'' MRS. LANGTRY IN THE WITNESS-BOX. The fair defendant was then put in the witness-box. She was neatly and simply dressed, spoke generally in rather tragic tones, and looked as charming as ever. The crowd which had thronged the court by this time was a huge one, and was composed of about equal proportions of literary and dramatic celebrities. Mr. Buchanan and Miss Harriett Jay were present, and two ladies seated on the bench by the judge had also come to see how “the Jersey Lily” would acquit herself of her new rôle.
Mr. Lockwoad elicited that Mrs. Langtry had applied to Mr. Buchanan to write a piece, and, said she, in answer to a further question, “I impressed on Mr. Buchanan that I wanted a good part.”
Mr. Lockwood: Mrs, Langtry, is it true to suggest that you had determined to reject the play before you received it?—Mrs. Langtry: There is not a word of truth in the suggestion.
A long discussion arose at this point between the judge and Mr. Winch and Mr. Lockwood as to whether Mrs. Langtry could be asked if she thought the leading part in Mr. Buchanan’s piece a strong and sympathetic one.
Ultimately it was decided that the defendant’s answer expressing dissatisfaction might be recorded.
Mr. Lockwood: It must be taken that Mr. Buchanan knew for whom he was writing. But the fitness of the play should be decided by the jury.
Mr. Justice Charles: Do you intend that they should read the play?
Mr. Lockwood (embarrassed for a moment) did not reply immediately. Then he alluded to Mr. Merivale’s “Whip Hand” which was read before Mr. Justice Field, “but I don’t know how he liked it.” (Laughter.)
Mr. Winch, in cross-examination, caused some amusement by extracting from Mrs. Langtry the statement that the heroine appeared to think more of the death of a dog in the piece than of the death of the heroine’s father, which was supposed to be an important feature. He also alluded to the arbitration-case about a play by Mr. Haddon Chambers, in which, according to the witness, the woman’s part, when duly written up, was “too strong.”
The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day. ___ The Guardian (21 November, 1890 - p.6) ACTION BY A DRAMATIC AUTHOR. BUCHANAN v. LANGTRY. In the Court of Queen’s Bench yesterday afternoon the case of Buchanan v. Langtry came before Mr. Justice Charles and a common jury. Great interest was shown in the proceedings, the court being crowded.
The action was brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the dramatic author, against Mrs. Lillie Langtry, who is now the lessee and manageress of the Princess’s Theatre, London, to recover damages laid at £2,000 for a legal breach of a contract to open her New York theatrical season last year with a play written by the plaintiff. Mrs. Langtry admitted making the contract, but pleaded that one of its terms was that she should not be bound to accept the drama unless it was suited to her own powers and style of acting; that the plaintiff’s play did not suit her or her company, and that therefore she was not liable. Further, the defendant put in a counter claim for £150, which she had paid the plaintiff in respect of the play. Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
Mr. Winch, in opening the case, said that the claim of his client was for a balance due to him for a play which he wrote for the well-known actress Mrs. Langtry, who had already paid £150. In September, 1888, Mrs. Langtry was desirous of having written for her a play which she might produce in New York. On the 10th September Mr. Buchanan received a telegram asking him to meet Mrs. Langtry. On the 14th Mr. Buchanan saw her and had a conversation with her. Mrs. Langtry told him that she desired him to write a play which she might produce in New York, and in which she would take the chief part. Among other things, Mrs. Langtry told Mr. Buchanan that she had been to Paris, and had bought a number of very beautiful dresses, and that the scenes of the play were to be so arranged that she could wear these beautiful dresses. Accordingly Mr. Buchanan, with a prudence that, as events turned out, was very wise, asked Mrs. Langtry to give him an agreement. The agreement was written as follows:—”September 14.—Dear Mr. Buchanan, I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts with a leading star part for myself on the terms proposed, viz., that I should pay you £150 down and £150 on the delivery of the MS., and the sum of £50 weekly during my performance of the piece. It is understood that the above prepaid £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50 a week. It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years. The piece is to be delivered to me in new York, not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January, in New York City.—Yours truly, LILLIE LANGTRY.”—On the same day Mr. Buchanan acknowledged the receipt of the letter and reiterated the terms on which the play was to be written. In the same letter he informed Mrs. Langtry that she might rely on him using very great efforts to write a play worthy of her talents. On the following Friday Mrs. Langtry again wrote to Mr. Buchanan, enclosing a cheque for £150, and saying that she would prefer not too long a cast, as “nice supers are hard to get in America, and impossible in some parts, though of course if necessary they can be found.” In answer to Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Langtry wrote the names of the company, and said that there must be a “strong lover’s part” in the piece as well as a strong part that she could offer to Mr. Coghlan, as “Mr. Calvert was not a good stage lover.”—(Laughter.) “Of course,” continued Mrs. Langtry, “you will make me a woman’s and not a girl’s part.” On receiving the deposit Mr. Buchanan put on one side all his other work and began to write the play. The play, which was called “Lady Gladys,” he had not read, though he understood that his learned friend had read it.
Mr. Lockwood: Quite enough of it.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Winch pointed out that Mr. Buchanan had a very great interest in writing a play that would have a long run. Some time afterwards Mr. Buchanan wrote to Mrs. Langtry asking her if there was truth in the rumour given in all the English newspapers that she was to re-open the Fifth Avenue Theatre with a revival of “Macbeth.” “I trust,” said Mr. Buchanan, “that this is not true, as it would amount to a breach of your contract with me. If you, however, desire to change your plans we had better come to some amicable arrangement, as, your season in New York being short, I shall be a heavy loser. I am, however, quite prepared to meet you in any way.” To that letter Mr. Buchanan got an answer in which nothing was said about the revival of “Macbeth.” That letter said—”By this post I return your MS., in sending which I venture to think that you must have made a mistake, as it is so very unlike what you promised. I hope you have discovered the error, and that the right play is now on the way to New York. If, however, it is the play you intended for me, I may tell you that it is not of the slightest service. The part is weak, as is the play. It is unsympathetic, and the surroundings nil. You must remember what we arranged for was a play with a heroine star part, strong, emotional, and sympathetic, and a hero’s part weighty and powerful, such as I could offer to Mr. Coghlan. You have placed me in a serious dilemma. I desired and promised to produce a new play in New York, and relied on you. Now at the last moment I am obliged to seek other plays, for I cannot produce a play so unworthy of you and of me.” After that letter Mr. Buchanan made an effort to compromise the matter, and was willing to let Mrs. Langtry have the play. Unfortunately no settlement had been arrived at, and the question was now left for the decision of the jury.
Mr. Robert Buchanan was called and examined by Mr. Winch. He stated that on September 14 Mrs. Langtry requested him to write for her a play. She said that she would leave the material and the treatment of the play entirely in his hands. Thereupon he spoke of terms, and said that he thought that fair terms would be £50 for every week she played the piece. He asked for the usual deposit down and so much on the delivery of the MS. To these terms she assented. Mrs. Langtry during the interview wrote the agreement given in the opening. A day or so afterwards he received a cheque for £150. Mrs. Langtry stated that she had not a banking account in London, and would have to open one. The play was written and was delivered on November 30, notwithstanding great difficulty in finding Mrs. Langtry. “Lady Gladys” was a play that he had written with the best of his ability, and was a play in which Mrs. Langtry’s part would be that of a “Star.” Mrs. Langtry stated that she had bought some good modern dresses in Paris, and desired to use them. There would be four changes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood: The question of dress was merely as to period? No; the play was to be a modern play.—When was that discussed? During our conversation. She asked for a piece in which she could use modern costumes.—Are you sure it was on the 14th September only? I saw her on more than one occasion. I saw her, I think, on the previous day.—Was the contract partly made on the 14th? We discussed whether I would write a play.—She said particularly that she did not want a girl’s part? That was put in the letter. I should never have thought of writing her a girl’s part—in the theatrical sense.—When did you set to work? Practically at once, after I got the deposit.—Did you express pleasure at writing a part for Mr. Coghlan? Not in the least. Why should I?—(Laughter.)—What part was for Mr. Coghlan? Edgar Vane. I was not particular that he should play it.—As I understand the play Mrs. Langtry’s part was that of the daughter of a broken down earl? Yes.—There is no harm in breaking down an earl?—(Laughter.)—Theatrically, I suppose not.
The main act turned on the shooting of a dog which was to appear on the stage with Mrs. Langtry? That is an incident of the first act.—In the directions we are told that the dog must be trained to carry out the business of the scene? Yes.—Where was Mrs. Langtry to get this intelligent dog? Almost any retriever would do, as all that the dog had to do was to follow his mistress about.—Did you indicate where Mrs. Langtry could get such a dog? I could have sent her one. There could be no difficulty, as any retriever would follow its mistress.—A great deal turned on the dog? No; he was not killed on the stage.
In the play Lady Gladys marries under an assumed name a man named Gascoigne, and obtains from him a deed of gift, with which she returns to England in order to turn out the father of her husband. Does she not do that merely out of revenge? Not exactly out of revenge alone, but partly to repossess herself of her father’s property.—But her father had died? He is like the dog; he dies?—(Laughter.) Yes; he practically dies on the stage.—He faints on the stage? Yes; but all people that faint on the stage do not die?—(Laughter.) No; I did not say so.—When Lady Gladys returns she turns out the old man? Not absolutely. She makes it unpleasant for him.—(Laughter.)—I don’t mean that she takes him neck and crop. She orders him off the premises? Yes.—Then she ascertains that during her father’s poverty he was in receipt of anonymous gifts from Edgar Gascoyne, her heart melts, and then—curtain? That is a very ad captandum description.
I have left out the humour?—You have left out a good deal. You might describe “Hamlet” or “Macbeth” in the same way.
I have left out the humour. I will read a passage and will ask you to call my attention to any other portion of the play which you consider more humorous. There is a person who plays the part of Major Fitzherbert, an officer on half-pay—very dear at the price—(laughter)—and a Mrs. Pope. Speaking to Mrs. Pope, the Major says, “I say, Mrs. Pope, what a jolly story that was of yours about the fellah who went to India and when he got back found his wife had married another fellah.” Mrs. Pope (referring to some book she had written); “Oh ‘Twice Wedded’—an early effort.”—Major: “Haw, haw, an idea. Why don’t you write a story about a woman who has worn mourning for two husbands walking in a garden and call it ‘Twice Weeded?’ Haw, haw. You are welcome to the title.”—(Laughter.) You take that as humorous?—It is meant to be so. It is meant to be as you read it.
Can you call my attention to any funnier part?—I don’t pretend that it is funny.
Is this a serious play? Yes.—Show me a livelier passage?
The Judge: If you read “She Stoops to Conquer” like that you would laugh at it.
Mr. Lockwood apologised for his want of histrionic ability, and resumed his cross-examination.
Do you really consider the part of Lady Gladys a sympathetic part? Yes.—You were to be sole arbiter as to whether it was sympathetic? Yes; but I offered a compromise afterwards without being able to get a hearing. The contract was broken before that, as she was then rehearsing “Macbeth,” as the English newspapers and Mr. Coghlan, if you call him, will tell you.
Do you suggest that Mrs. Langtry had made up her mind to reject your play before it reached her, and that after paying £150?—Yes, I do.
In re-examination Mr. Buchanan said that the characters from whose parts Mr. Lockwood had read were known in theatrical parlance as comic reliefs. The speech was in character with the man who spoke it.
Mr. Lockwood, in opening the case for the defendant, pointed out that Mr. Buchanan stood in a very different position from that which would be occupied by a painter who had been commissioned to paint a portrait. Mr. Buchanan was bound by the promise he had made and by the contract into which he had entered, and really in respect of the promise there appeared to be not very much dispute between Mr. Buchanan and Mrs. Langtry. Mrs. Langtry asked the plaintiff to write a play on terms one of which was that the leading star part for herself should be strong and sympathetic. She started for America looking forward to the production of a new play which she had promised to bring forward in new York. He regretted that the plaintiff had thought fit to impute to Mrs. Langtry dishonourable conduct of which she could never be capable. The plaintiff’s suggestion was that before seeing the play and after paying a deposit of £150 Mrs. Langtry had determined to throw up the piece and to produce “Macbeth.” That statement was absolutely unfounded. It was unjust as well as untrue, and was unworthy of the talented man who had made it. He contended that the part provided for Mrs. Langtry was that of a woman who could have excited no sympathy in any audience. Lady Gladys might have been played with success by some actresses, though she was unsuitable for Mrs. Langtry, being a woman who acted throughout from vengeful motives—a woman who married fraudulently, under an assumed name, and who obtained by fraud a deed of gift that enabled her to turn out of doors her husband’s father. He urged that Mr. Buchanan had not fulfilled his part of the contract in providing a character suited to the powers of Mrs. Langtry, and that he was therefore not entitled to a verdict.
Mrs. Langtry, examined by Mr. Lockwood, said that in 1888 she was about to go on tour in America and was anxious to produce a new play in New York. She saw Mr. Buchanan in September and asked him to write a modern play with a strong sympathetic part. Mr. Buchanan asked who was in her company. She replied that there were Mr. Coghlan and Mr. Evelyn. Mr. Buchanan expressed pleasure at finding Mr. Coghlan in the company, as he considered him a good actor, and added that he would write a part worthy of Mr. Coghlan. Mr. Buchanan promised to let her know something of the plot before she sailed, but he wrote saying that he had not been able to think of a plot. She was, she believed, in town when she received the play in December. It was not true that she had determined to reject the play before seeing it.
Is it a fact that you had put “Macbeth” in rehearsal before receiving the play?—Not until three weeks afterwards, at New York.
Was a strong and sympathetic part provided for you?
Mr. Winch objected that this was not an admissible question, inasmuch as there was no such stipulation in the contract.
His Lordship pointed out that, whatever may have passed in conversation, the parties had in the most formal manner reduced their compact to writing.
Mr. Lockwood contended that Mrs. Langtry had stipulated for a leading “star” part for herself, and Mr. Buchanan must be taken to have understood what the capabilities of the actress were.
The Judge said that the contract according to the learned counsel was for a strong and sympathetic part. The author said he had supplied such a part. Who was to decide?
Mr. Lockwood supposed the jury must decide.
The Judge asked if it was proposed that the jury should read the play.
Mr. Lockwood said he himself had not had time to read the play, though he should have no objection to taking a part in it.—(Laughter.) In a case in which he appeared for Mr. Hermann Merivale he had to read the play to Mr. Justice Field. He did not know how much his Lordship heard of it.—(Laughter.)
The Judge said that if the highest efforts of dramatic genius were to be measured by Mr. Lockwood’s success on the previous occasion the matter would be left pretty much where it was.
The learned counsel was ultimately allowed to ask Mrs. Langtry whether the part was a sympathetic one and suited to her.
Witness said it certainly was not. The part was one which could not command the sympathy or interest of the audience. Her part was that of a mean and vindictive character. It seemed to her that Lady Gladys cared more about the death of the dog than about the death of her father.—(Laughter.) She knew nothing as to whether the play she rejected had subsequently turned out a success.
The case was adjourned. ___ Daily News (21 November, 1890 - Issue 13925) THE
BUCHANAN-LANGTRY ACTION.
_____ Yesterday, before Mr. Justice Charles and a Special Jury, the trial of the action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known author and dramatist, against Mrs. Langtry to recover 150l., the balance of the alleged contract price for a play called “Lady Gladys,” came on for hearing. There was also a counter claim for 150l. by the defendant for a deposit paid on account in respect of the play. The case has from time to time been postponed, one of the reasons given being that the defendant’s time was taken up during the day by the rehearsals of “Antony and Cleopatra” at the Princess’s Theatre. It was set down for hearing on Wednesday, but was last on the list and the day was occupied with other cases. It seemed that a similar fate would befall it yesterday, for several cases stood in the way, one of them being an action for libel against General Booth, in which a large number of members of the Salvation Army appeared as witnesses. The list, however, with the exception of this case, was disposed of by luncheon-time, and, the Salvation Army case being removed to another court, Mr. Justice Charles was left free to deal with the dispute between Mr. Buchanan and Mrs. Langtry. The parties to the suit were present in good time. To begin with the plaintiff, in order of time, Mr. Robert Buchanan came into court accompanied by Miss Harriet Jay and another lady, and sat down in the well of the court behind Mr. Winch, his counsel. He gave his evidence without any of the hesitation hat characterises the ordinary witness, and was extremely ready in answering the skilful points made by Mr. Lockwood, sometimes indeed assuming the aggressive, rather than the defensive attitude himself. Latitude of evidence in civil cases, as compared with criminal trials, is so extensive that a witness like Mr. Buchanan could hardly help enlarging and explaining his answers beyond the mere “Yes” or “No” that was required of him, and Mr. Lockwood was at times compelled either to request the witness not to argue the point with him, or, on his own part, to decline to enter into an argument at the then juncture of affairs. The defendant, Mrs. Langtry, was naturally the most conspicuous personage in court. Accompanied by Mr. Lewis, junior, she entered the court, and took a seat also in the well of the court, just below her counsel. She was attired in a blue serge open tunic and skirt, the waistcoat underneath being of brocaded old gold, the bottom of the skirt being fringed in the same colour in narrow stripes round the entire width. The felt hat was of a colour to match, and was trimmed with Russian squirrel tails and the head of the animal in question. Her gloves were of yellow Suède. She gave her evidence with great deliberation, and as all actors and actresses in a court of justice do, spoke with as much clearness and distinctness, and at times, it must be added, with as much effect as though she were on the stage. She several times evinced a disposition to develop an ordinary answer into an explanatory dissertation, and it should also be remarked that neither her own advocate, nor the opposing counsel, nor the learned judge on the bench, showed any disinclination to listen to it. During one of the inevitable legal arguments that will arise as to the admission of a certain question Mrs. Langtry, not being called upon to discuss the point, manifested some sign of weariness, and expressed a wish to sit down, saying that she was very tired. The usher thereupon arranged the contrivance upon which witnesses may rest, which is a small plank on hinges. This being let down forms a seat, and Mrs. Langtry reclined thereon while the legal argument was going on. When the examination was resumed she rose to her feet again alert and active, and declined the invitation of Bar and Bench to be seated. Her examination concluded, she asked with a sigh of relief, “Am I released?” and then, finding that she was penned into the witness-box by the seat which had been lowered behind her, she turned to the usher, with a smile of entreaty, and changed her form of appeal into “May I be released?” This being successfully accomplished, Mrs. Langtry regained her former seat in court, and the proceedings being adjourned, remained in the great hall with Mr. Lewis and her brother, Mr. Le Breton, who is junior counsel on her side, until the crowd outside the precincts of the courts had to some extent cleared away. Among others in court were Mr. Coghlan, of whom frequent mention was made during the case; Mr. F. Everill, another member of Mrs. Langtry’s company; and Mr. F. C. Phillips, the author of “As in a Looking Glass,” one of the plays in which Mrs. Langtry has achieved distinction.
Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
Mr. Winch, in opening the case, said that the claim of his client was for a balance of 150l. due to him for a play which he wrote for the well-known actress, Mrs. Langtry, who had already paid 150l. on account. In September, 1888, Mrs. Langtry was desirous of having written for her a play which she might bring out in New York. On the 10th of September Mr. Buchanan received a telegram asking him to meet Mrs. Langtry on Friday, the 13th. On the 14th Mr. Buchanan saw Mrs. Langtry at the Pulteney Hotel, and had a conversation with her as to her requirements. Mrs. Langtry told him that she desired him to write a play which she might produce in New York, and of which she would take the chief part. She also told him that she had been to Paris and had bought a number of beautiful dresses, and she desired that the piece should be so arranged that she could wear those beautiful dresses. Then Mr. Buchanan, with a prudence which afterwards turned out to be so wise and desirable, put the agreement into writing, so that there should be no mistake about it, and in consequence of that Mrs. Langtry wrote the following letter: Sept. 14, 1888.
Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for myself, on the terms proposed, viz., that I pay you £150 down and £150 on the delivery of the MS., and the sum of £50 weekly during my performances of the piece. It is understood that the above prepayment of £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50. It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years. The piece is to be delivered to me in New York not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January in New York City.
Yours truly, LILLIE LANGTRY. Mr. Buchanan replied in the following terms: Sept. 14. ’88
Dear Mrs. Langtry,—I herewith acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date recapitulating our agreement as follows:—(1) That I am to write you a play in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for yourself, and to deliver it to you in New York not later than the 30th of November next. (2) That you are to pay for author’s royalties the fixed sum of £50 weekly whenever the play is acted and wherever, and in consideration of your so doing you are to have the sole acting rights for a term of three years. (3) That you are to pay me in advance of said royalties £150 down and £150 on delivery of the MS.; and (4) that the play is to be produced by you in New York on or about the 7th of January next. To all these I once more agree, and you may rely on my using my stringent endeavours to produce a drama worthy of your talents and of the occasion. Awaiting the receipt of your cheque for the first sum of £150 as arranged, I am, dear Mrs. Langtry, yours most truly, ROBERT BUCHANAN.
P.S.—You will greatly oblige me by sending on a list of the leading members of the company, also by letting me know the exact date of your return to town, that I can see you and make some preliminary suggestions on the subject of the play. Counsel continued—Mr. Buchanan put all his other work on one side, and finished the play which he had held in his hand. He had not read it all himself, but he understood that his learned friend had read a part of it.
Mr. Lockwood—Quite enough. (Laughter.)
Mr. Winch said he did not think it necessary to read the whole of the play to the jury. They must remember that Mr. Buchanan had a very great interest in writing a good play, because, although he would get 300l. on its delivery, yet there would be a royalty to be received in the event of its running beyond the six weeks which the 300l. covered. Mrs. Langtry had sent a cheque for 150l., with the following letter: Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I enclose cheque for £150. Please let me have a note in answer to mine. I omitted to say that I should prefer, if possible, not too long a cast, and also to tell you that nice supers are hard to get anywhere in America, and impossible in some parts. Still, of course, if necessary, they can be found.—Yours truly, LILLIE LANGTRY.
I shall look forward to hearing something of the plot before I leave for America. Mrs. Langtry also wrote the following: Dear Mr. Buchanan,—My company consists of C. Coghlan, leading man, Fred Everill, comedian and character. . . . These are all the principals I have at present. Should there be a strong lover’s part in the piece as well as Coghlan’s I could engage some one specially, Calvert not being a good stage lover. You will see I have no old man nor old woman, but of course would engage. So I really think you had better not consider the company much beyond Coghlan and Fred Everill, who is excellent.—Yours truly,
LILLIE LANGTRY.
Of course you will make me a woman’s, not a girl’s, part. Some time afterwards, however, Mr. Buchanan heard that it was Mrs. Langtry’s intention to produce “Macbeth” in America, and he wrote to her as follows: December 1st.
Dear Mrs. Langtry,—It has been stated here in many newspapers that you are arranging to open at the Fifth Avenue Theatre with a revival of “Macbeth.” I trust it is not true, as it would mean the breach of your contract with me for the production of my play on January 7th. If, however, you desire to change your plans we had better come to some amicable arrangement, for as your season in new York is very short I should be a heavy loser after my cordial efforts to keep faith with you and provide you with a popular play. Kindly let me know how you propose to act in the matter. I am quite content to meet you in every way. I am awaiting your acknowledgement of the M.S., together with the balance of deposit money—£150. I shall be very sorry indeed if there are to be any difficulties between us, as I have great faith in the popular qualities of “Lady Gladys.”—With all good wishes, yours truly, ROBERT BUCHANAN. Mrs. Langtry replied on Dec. 12: Dear Mr. Buchanan,—By this post I return your MS. of “Lady Gladys,” in sending which I fancy you must have made a mistake, as it is so very unlike what you promised and I expected. I hope by this time you have discovered the error and that the right play is now on its way to New York. If it is indeed the play you intended for me, I may tell you it is not of the slightest service to me. The part is weak (as I think is the play) and unsympathetic, and the surroundings nil. You must remember what we arranged, and you agreed and promised to write for me—a play with the heroine, a star part, strong, emotional, and sympathetic—the hero, of weight and power, such as I could offer to Mr. Coghlan, two or three well-defined characters of importance, and others as you might require to fill out the plot. You have placed me in a serious dilemma. I desired and had promised to produce a new play in New York, and relied entirely on you for that play, and now at the last moment I am left to seek for others; but I cannot accept or produce a play so unworthy of both you and me.—Yours faithfully, LILLIE LANGTRY. The defence which was set up was that it was a verbal agreement, the terms of which were that Mrs. Langtry was not bound to accept the drama unless it was one of which she should approve. But he pointed out that if that condition were to hold good the play writer would be at the mercy of anybody who ordered a play, and then from some cause or other considered that it was unsuitable. Possibly an actor or an actress might not be able to act up to the part. He, on the contrary, suggested that it had been decided to put “Macbeth” on the stage, and that “Lady Gladys,” in spite of the contract, had been shelved to make room for it.
Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN was then called. he said—I am a dramatic author. On the 10th of September, 1888, I received a telegram, in consequence of which I called on Mrs. Langtry. She requested me to write a play for her, and to suit it as far as possible to her abilities as an actress. She said she required it to open with in New York in the following January, and desired me to deliver it by the 30th of November following. She said she would leave the material and treatment of the play entirely in my hands, and thereupon I spoke of terms. I said I thought a fair price would be 50l. weekly for every week she played it. I asked for the usual deposit, so much down and so much on the delivery of the manuscript. To these terms she assented.
How was it you came to have the document in writing?—She wrote it in my presence. (Counsel read the document stating the terms of the contract.) I took that letter away, and wrote back repeating the terms of the contract. I received a cheque for 150l.
Is this a play which you have written to the best of your ability?—Unquestionably.
Is it a play in which Mrs. Langtry’s part would be a leading star part?—Decidedly. She mentioned to me in conversation that she desired to have some modern dresses, and that she had bought some in Paris. I said that it would be such a play. There would be about four changes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood—It was distinctly understood to be a modern piece. She asked me to provide a piece in which she could use modern costumes. I saw Mrs. Langtry on more than one occasion. I saw her on the 13th as well as the 14th September. I don’t think we discussed the terms on that day. We did not discuss the money part of the contract.
She said that she did not want a “girl’s part”?—No. She never said anything about that till she wrote me a letter. I should never have thought of writing her a girl’s part—in the theatrical sense.
Did you express pleasure at the prospect of writing a part for Mr. Coghlan?—None whatever. Why should I?
I don’t know. (Laughter.) Did you write the part for Mr. Coghlan?—Yes, I thought it would suit him.
You also wrote a part for Mr. Everill?—There were two old men’s parts, either of which I thought would suit him.
Now, my learned friend has said that he has not read all the play. I understand that Mrs. Langtry’s part was that of the daughter of a broken-down earl?—Yes.
There is no harm in that?—No; they often break down. (Laughter.)
And the main incident turned upon the shooting of a dog which was to appear on the stage with Mrs. Langtry?—That was a part of the first act.
In the directions we are told that the dog must be trained to carry out the business of the scene?—Yes.
Where was Mrs. Langtry to get this intelligent dog?—Almost any retriever would do, as all that the dog had to do was to follow his mistress about.
Did you indicate where Mrs. Langtry could get such a dog?—I could have sent her one. There could be no difficulty, as any retriever would follow its mistress.
Do you mean to say you had a dog in your mind when you wrote this?—Yes, any intelligent retriever dog would be able to do it.
A great deal turns upon the shooting of the dog?—Yes, it is an important incident in the piece, and I meant it should be. The dog was not shot upon the stage. It was shot “off.”
The learned counsel then proceeded to give a summary of the play. Lady Gladys, after the dog had been killed, married the son of the proprietor of the estate, which originally belonged to her father, on which the dog had been shot, and having induced her husband to transfer the estate to her by deed of gift, returned home in order to turn out the father of her husband.
Mr. Lockwood—Does she not do that merely out of revenge?—Not exactly out of revenge alone, but partly to repossess herself of her father’s property.
But her father had died? He is like the dog; he dies. (Laughter.)—Yes, he practically dies on the stage. He faints on the stage.
Yes, but all people that faint on the stage do not die? (Laughter.)—No, I did not say so.
When Lady Gladys returns she turns out the old man?—Not absolutely; she makes it unpleasant for him. (Laughter.)
I don’t mean that she takes him neck and crop; she orders him off the premises?—Yes.
Then she ascertains that during her father’s poverty he was in receipt of anonymous gifts from Edgar Van; her heart melts, and then curtain?—That is a very ad captandum description.
Oh! I forget. I have left out something. I have left out the humour. Will you call my attention to any portion of the play which is more humorous than that which I am about to read to you.
Mr. Lockwood then, in a very solemn, not to say lugubrious manner, read the following piece of dialogue which takes place between Major Hubert, a major on half pay (“Very dear at the price,” the learned counsel incidentally remarked) and a Mrs. Pope. Speaking to Mrs. Pope the Major says, “I say, Mrs. Pope, what a jolly story that was of yours about the fellah who went to India, and when he got back found his wife had married another fellah.” Mrs. Pope (referring to some book she had written): “Oh, ‘Twice Wedded’—an early effort.”—Major: “Haw, haw! an idea! Why don’t you write a story about a woman who has worn mourning for two husbands walking in a garden, and call it ‘Twice Weeded.’ Ha! ha! ha! you are welcome to the title.” (Laughter.)
Mr. Lockwood (continuing): You take that as humorous?—It is meant to be. It is not so as you read it.
Can you show me anything that is more humorous than that? If not, we had better pass on.—Yes. I think you had better pass on. I don’t pretend that it is a funny play. You have no right to read separate passages like that.
The Judge (to Mr. Lockwood)—If you were to read “She Stoops to Conquer” in that style I don’t think any one would laugh.
Mr. Lockwood—Do you really consider the part of Lady Gladys a sympathetic part?—Yes.
You were to be the sole arbiter as to whether it was sympathetic?—Yes; but I offered a compromise afterwards without being able to get a hearing. The contract was broken before that, as she was then rehearsing “Macbeth,” as the English newspapers and Mr. Coghlan, if you call him, will tell you.
Do you suggest that Mrs. Langtry had made up her mind to reject your play before it reached her, and that after paying 150l.?—Yes, I do.
Re-examined by Mr. Winch—The dog had nothing to do except to follow his mistress on and off the stage. His death took place at the wings.
So that was all the dog had to do?—Yes. As to the parts of Major Herbert and Mrs. Hope, they were simply what are called “comic relief,” and were written up to suit the characters that were sketched.
This closed the plaintiff’s case.
Mr. Lockwood, for the defence, repudiated any suggestion of bad faith on Mrs. Langtry’s part, remarking that though Mr. Buchanan might know something of stage manners and the sympathies and emotions that swayed theatrical audiences, he evidently knew nothing of the emotions and affections that influenced a British jury, or he would never have made an imputation of the kind. He contended that the play supplied by Mr. Buchanan in no way came up to the stipulations that Mrs. Langtry laid down in her interviews with him.
Mrs. Langtry was then called and examined by Mr. Lockwood—She said: My Christian name is Lillie, and I am an actress. In November, 1888 I was about to leave London for New York with an acting company.
For that purpose were you anxious to produce a new comedy?—Very anxious. I put myself in communication with Mr. Buchanan. I asked him to write me a modern play, with a strong, emotional, sympathetic part. He asked me who was in my company and I said Mr. Coghlan and Mr. Everill. He said he was very glad to hear Mr. Coghlan was in my company; that he was a very fine actor, and that he would take great pleasure in writing him a good part. We went into some details; but I can’t quite remember what they were. He promised to let me know something about the plot before we sailed, but he wrote me a letter to say that the time was so short that he was unable to do so. I am sorry to say I have not the letter. I never keep letters. I ought to. I think we had nothing more to say with reference to the play further than to impress upon Mr. Buchanan that the part must be strong.
And I think you said sympathetic?—Yes; I can’t say where I received the MS. I think it was in Toronto. It would be about the 2nd of December.
Is it true to suggest that you had determined to reject the play before you received it?—No.
Is it true that you had produced “Macbeth” before you received it?—No; we rehearsed “Macbeth” about a fortnight after.
It is true that “Lady Gladys” is a strong and sympathetic part?
The Judge doubted whether the question was admissible.
Mr. Lockwood contended that it was, as being put to an expert.
The Judge asked who was to be the tribunal to decide whether the part was strong, emotional, and sympathetic. The writer said it was, and the lady said it was not. He supposed the jury would have to judge. Was the learned counsel going to read the play to the jury?
Mr. Lockwood hoped not, but said that he would not object to take a small part in it, so long as it was not the part of the major. (Laughter.) Perhaps his learned friend Mr. Winch would take that part and he would take the part of the dog. He had once been obliged to read a great part of a play when he had had the honour of appearing for Mr. Herman Merivale before Mr. Justice Field, but he could not say how much his lordship had heard of it. (Laughter.)
Question eventually allowed, the judge taking a note of the objection.
Was that in your opinion a sympathetic part?—No; nor strong. I afterwards showed it to Mr. Everill. I don’t remember whether Mr. Coghlan was with me at the time.
Did you regard it as such an easy matter to find a dog to train for this part as Mr. Buchanan seemed to think?—No; I did not, in America. I opened at New York on the 7th of January. I had intended to rehearse “Lady Gladys” on tour. I did not begin to rehearse “Macbeth” till a fortnight or three weeks afterwards.
Cross-examined by Mr. Winch—I had known Mr. Buchanan by name and reputation, and I hoped that he would be able to write me a play.
Will you explain why you did not put the condition that the play was to be strong and sympathetic in your written contract?—Because it was hastily drawn and in a friendly manner.
Counsel read the contract and again asked the question.—Witness said that the character was not one to arouse the sympathy of the audience. It was that of a mean and vindictive woman. It seemed to her that Lady Gladys cared more about the death of the dog than about the death of her father. Mr. Buchanan (she continued) wrote to me that the dog was a very important dog. I was travelling at the time when the play arrived. Mr. Coghlan had left me at the time. It was the early part of December, 1888. He had gone to arrange for the scenery in “Macbeth,” which was to be produced after this play. I was obliged to make preparations in advance. I never knew a play to run more than four weeks in New York and I had to be prepared with a change. We always have to keep looking forward. I am even now considering what I am going to produce next, though I hope that “Cleopatra” will run for a day or two. (Laughter.)
You have been unfortunate before with play-writers?—Yes; with Mr. Haddon Chambers.
You rejected one of his plays?—Yes. We did not go to law, but to arbitration. It came before Mr. Bancroft, and an offer which I had previously made was carried out.
Was that a play that you had ordered?—No; it was not a new play. It was a play in which a part had been written up for me; but the part had been written up so strongly that it would have killed the piece. The character was out of all proportion to those of the male actors.
At this point the Court adjourned till to-day. ___ The Times (21 November, 1890 - p.13) (Before MR. JUSTICE CHARLES and a Common Jury.) BUCHANAN V. LANGTRY. This was an action to recover damages for breach of contract.
Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
The plaintiff was the well-known dramatist and the defendant Mrs. Lillie Langtry.
The plaintiff alleged that in September, 1888, by a contract partly verbal and partly in writing, it was arranged that he should write a drama for the defendant “to open her next season in New York.” The terms of the contract are set out in the following letters:—
“Sept. 14, 1888.
“Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for myself, on the terms proposed—namely, that I pay you £150 down and £150 on delivery of the manuscript, and the sum of £50 weekly during my performance of the piece. It is understood that the above prepayment of £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50.
“It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years.
“The piece is to be delivered to me in New York not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January in New York City. “Yours truly, “LILLIE LANGTRY.” “Hamlet-court, Southend, Essex, Sept. 14.
“Dear Mrs. Langtry,—I herewith acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date recapitulating our agreement as follows:—
“(1) That I am to write you a play, in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for yourself, and to deliver it to you in New York not later than the 30th of November next.
“(2) That you are to pay for author’s royalties the fixed sum of £50 weekly whenever the play is acted, and wherever, and in consideration of your so doing you are to have the sole acting rights for a term of three years.
“(3) That you are to pay me in advance of said royalties £150 (one hundred and fifty pounds) down and £150 on delivery of the manuscript; and
“(4) That the play is to be produced by you in New York on or about the 7th of January next.
“To all this I once more agree, and you may rely on my using my stringent endeavours to produce a drama worthy of your talents and of the occasion. Awaiting the receipt of your cheque for the first sum of £150 as arranged,
“I am, dear Mrs. Langtry, yours most truly,
“ROBERT BUCHANAN.
“Mrs. Langtry.
“P.S.—You will greatly oblige me by sending me the list of the leading members of the company, also by letting me know the exact date of your return to town that I can see you and make some preliminary suggestions on the subject of the play. “B.” “Pulteney Hotel, 13, Albemarle-street, W., Friday.
“Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I enclose cheque for 150 pounds. Please let me have a note in answer to mine. I omitted to say that I should prefer if possible not too long a cast, and also to tell you that nice supers are hard to get anywhere in America, and impossible in some parts. Still, of course, if necessary, they can be found. “Yours truly,
“LILLIE LANGTRY.”
“I shall look forward to hearing something of the plot before I leave for America.” “Pulteney Hotel, 13, Albemarle-street, W., Saturday.
“Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I have received your letter. My company consists of :—C. Coghlan, leading man; Fred Everill, comedian and character; Louis Calvert, juvenile, or better in rough part; Ivan Peronet, wg. gentleman (dudish); Sidney Herbert, light comedy; Miss Russell, leading lady—Ada Rehan’s sister, rather like her in style, about my height, slight Irish accent, scarcely noticeable; Mrs. Calvert, soubrette; Miss Florence, very pretty ingénue, long fair hair. These are all the principals I have at present. Should there be a strong lover part in the piece as well as Coghlan’s I could engage some one especially, Calvert not being a good stage lover. You will see I have no old man nor old woman, but, of course, would engage. So I really think you had better not consider the company much beyond Coghlan and Fred Everill, who is excellent.
“Yours truly, “LILLIE LANGTRY.
“Of course you will make me a woman’s not a girl’s part.” The plaintiff wrote a drama called Lady Gladys, and sent it to Mrs. Langtry in November, 1888. She, however, was not pleased with it, and consequently the play was never produced.
The defendant pleaded that it was part of the contract that she should not be bound to accept the drama or pay for the same unless it was a piece of which she approved, and which was suited to the powers and styles of acting of the defendant and the members of her company, and alleged that the drama Lady Gladys was of no use to her.
Mr. Buchanan, the plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that the agreement with the defendant was substantially to the effect stated in the above letters. She wrote the letter of September 14 in his presence, and he took it away with him. The £150 was paid to him on same day. Lady Gladys was a play in which defendant’s part would be a “leading star” part. The play would involve four changes of dress.
Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD, Q.C.—The play was to be a “modern” piece. The sort of play wanted was discussed on the 13th of September. The defendant said she wanted a strong and sympathetic part. He set to work at once. He expressed no pleasure at having to write a part for Mr. Coghlan. He came in the second act. Mr. Everill would have played Sir Gilbert. Mrs. Langtry would have played the part of the daughter of a broken-down earl, who had been dispossessed by Sir Gilbert Vane. The main incident was the shooting of a dog by Sir Gilbert which was to enter on the stage with Mrs. Langtry. Any retriever dog could have done the part. Lady Gladys makes it unpleasant for the old earl whose son she had married. [The learned counsel went through the play somewhat in detail, and asked whether his description was substantially correct.] That is rather bare. He was of opinion defendant made up her mind to reject the play before she read it.
Mrs. Langtry, in her evidence, said that she was very anxious to produce a new play in the United States in the autumn of 1888, and consulted Mr. Buchanan with reference thereto. She impressed upon him that her part must be strong and sympathetic. She received the drama in Toronto. Macbeth was only rehearsed about three weeks afterwards. Lady Gladys was not a strong or sympathetic part. She did not know where to find a dog such as that mentioned in the play.
In cross-examination she stated she thought so much of the plaintiff that she imagined he could write a play to suit her. She did not insist that her part was to be “strong” in the letter of September 14, because she thought it was included in the words “leading star” part. On December 1, when the play arrived, she had made arrangements to appear as Lady Macbeth during the New York season, which ran for ten weeks from January 10. She had been rather unfortunate before with play-writers—for instance, with Mr. Hatton Chambers, with whom she had an arbitration concerning a play he wrote for her, Mr. Bancroft being the arbitrator.
At this stage of the case the Court adjourned. ___ The Times (22 November, 1890 - p.17) (Before MR. JUSTICE CHARLES and a Common Jury.) BUCHANAN V. LANGTRY. The further hearing of this case was resumed to-day.
Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
Mr. Everill was called and stated he had had 38 years’ experience of the stage. In his opinion the part of Lady Gladys was not a strong, or emotional, or sympathetic part for Mrs. Langtry.
This closed the defendant’s evidence.
The learned JUDGE intimated that the question he should leave to the jury was whether it was a term of the contract that the play should be one which, in Mrs. Langtry’s judgment, should be fitted for her—in other words, whether what passed on the 13th of September was part of the promise or bargain, and, if so, whether that bargain was performed.
Mr. LOCKWOOD, Q.C., in his address to the jury, insisted that it was unlikely that it could have been intended that the plaintiff was to be the sole arbiter of the excellence of his work. Mrs. Langtry’s part was to be “a strong part,” and this was not a play in which her part was of such a nature. There was no foundation for the statement that she had rejected the play before reading it. The part allotted to her was perfectly inadequate and unsuitable. The balance of probability was that the defendant would provide in any contract she made that she should have a part which should be “strong and sympathetic” and suited to her.
Mr. WINCH, Q.C., in his reply, commented on the fact that it had not been made a part of the written contract that Mrs. Langtry’s part should be “strong and sympathetic.” The agreement simply provided that she should have a “leading star” part, which was a very different thing, but such a thing was provided for in the drama. He showed that any one could make a play or work, however well written, seem ridiculous, by reading fragmentary or isolated bits of it, as Mr. Lockwood had done with Lady Gladys. At any rate, even the defendant had not proved that the part was to be strong and sympathetic for her, but simply maintained that it ought to be “a strong and sympathetic part.”
MR. JUSTICE CHARLES having summed up,
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £150 damages. ___ Daily News (22 November, 1890 - Issue 13926) THE
BUCHANAN-LANGTRY ACTION.
_____ VERDICT AND JUDGMENT. Mr. Buchanan’s action against Mrs. Langtry, to recover 150l., the balance of the contract price, stated at 300l., for the play of “Lady Gladys,” which he had engaged to write for her on her American tour, was resumed yesterday before Mr. Justice Charles. Considerable interest was still manifested in the proceedings, though the evidence was, with the exception of one witness, completed, and only one of the parties to the suit was present. This was Mr. Buchanan, who was accompanied as before by Miss Harriet Jay. Mrs. Langtry did not come to the Court at all, and there was nobody of note present.
Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; the defendant was represented by Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. C. M. Le Breton.
Mr. FREDERICK AUGUSTUS EVERILL was called and examined by Mr. Le Breton. He said—I am an actor of about 38 years’ experience. I have acted in Mrs. Langtry’s company for seven years.
Are you able to form a judgment of what would be a strong and sympathetic part in her hands?
Mr. Winch—I take the same objection that I did before.
The Judge took a note of the objection, and under those circumstances allowed the question to be put.
Mr. Le Breton—Was it a part in which she would have had the slightest chance of success?—No.
The Judge—That must be a matter of conjecture.
Mr. Lockwood respectfully agreed with his lordship’s objection, but submitted that he was entitled to get the witness’s opinion as to whether the part was a strong and sympathetic one, and suited to Mrs. Langtry’s powers.
Mr. Winch—Leaving it in that way, I have nothing more to add.
Mr. Lockwood then examined the witness on the subject of the dates of the various engagements. Mr. Everill produced a diary for 1888, from which it appeared that the company were at Toronto from Nov. 29 to Dec. 2. They opened at new York on Jan. 7 The first play was “Peril,” which ran for one week, and the next was “As in a Looking Glass.” That ran till the 19th. “Macbeth” was produced on the 21st, and after that they had to use their répertoire, as they had nothing else. The season at the Fifth Avenue Theatre terminated on the 7th of March.
Mr. Lockwood—I suppose that an original comedy in three acts would have been a great attraction in New York?—Yes.
I suppose that even the “immortal bard” would not draw like that would?—Not at the Fifth Avenue.
Cross-examined by Mr. Winch—Was it not really the intention of Mrs. Langtry to produce “Macbeth” on the 7th of January?—No, it was not. We had to hurry up “Macbeth.” It was because we could not get anything else ready. I don’t think it was Mrs. Langtry’s intention to produce “Macbeth” first, unless we had nothing else. If we had had the new comedy ready we should have produced it on the 7th of January.
Mr. Lockwood—I suppose you have to look a little way ahead in theatrical matters?—I should do so, certainly.
This concluded the case for the defendant.
The Judge said that the real question upon that evidence was whether the contract was that a play should be furnished which, in the opinion of the defendant, contained a strong and sympathetic part.
Mr. Lockwood did not contend that Mrs. Langtry’s opinion was to be final. If he had suggested that, it would not have been necessary for him to have called Mr. Everill.
The Judge said that after all the only question that could be left to the jury was whether the defendant had made out her case in respect of the third paragraph, which simply amounted to this, that her stipulation was that the piece was to be one of which she herself could approve.
Mr. Lockwood—And whether, in fact, it was a part which was suited to the style and the powers of the actress.
The Judge—The whole of the evidence goes to show that it was unsuited to her, and that evidence is corroborated by a member of her own company. After some further discussion, he observed that it was quite clear that it would be useless to trouble the jury by reading the play to them. He did not think the jury would wish to hear the play read. It would cast upon them a task which was almost impossible to perform. Anybody who had the slightest acquaintance with dramatic literature knew perfectly well that a book read in the study gave no indication whatever of how it would act on the stage. He owned himself, as he had said the day before, that his opinion was that there was no evidence to go to the jury, but he should ask them whether it was one of the terms of the bargain that the play should be one which in Mrs. Langtry’s judgment was suited for her.
Mr. Lockwood upon that said that the two questions were—first, what were the terms of the contract; and next, whether the conditions had been fulfilled. He did not present the case, and never had done so, as one in which Mrs. Langtry’s judgment was to be final and decisive.
The Judge—Well, that is what I propose to ask, if not exactly in those words. In other words, I shall ask whether what passed on the 13th of Sept. was or was not part of the bargain, and if it was, whether that bargain was fulfilled.
Mr. Lockwood then addressed the jury upon these points, contending that the conversation of the 13th of Sept. related to the contract. Upon that he argued that it was a probable thing that she should impress upon Mr. Buchanan that the play which was to be produced for her must contain a strong and sympathetic part in which she should be enabled to succeed. Mr. Buchanan with his experience knew perfectly well the actress for whom he was writing, and in view of that knowledge, he submitted that Mr. Buchanan had not fulfilled that part of the contract which provided that he should write Mrs. Langtry up a part which should be strong and sympathetic.
Mr. Winch replied for the plaintiff, and argued that it was simply absurd to suppose that a dramatist of the ability of Mr. Buchanan should be foolish enough to write a play of which Mrs. Langtry was to be the sole judge of whether it fulfilled the terms of the contract or not. There was a “strong and sympathetic” part in the piece, but Mrs. Langtry’s only contention was that that part was not suited to her own peculiar style and ability, and there was nothing in the contract that included such a condition.
The Judge briefly summed up the facts to the jury, and left it to them to say whether it was likely that Mr. Buchanan would enter into a contract the conditions of which were to be absolutely decided by Mrs. Langtry. No attempt had been made by the defence to show that the play did not contain a strong and sympathetic part, and all that Mr. Lockwood had urged was that the part was not strong and sympathetic in Mrs. Langtry’s hands. He left it to the jury to say whether or not the letters of the 14th of Sept. (given in The Daily News of yesterday) constituted a contract, and if so whether they thought that the evidence of Mr. Everill given that day was sufficient corroboration to induce them to believe that Mr. Buchanan had committed a breach of the contract.
The Jury, without leaving the box and after a few moments’ deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Studd—Then I ask your lordship for judgment with costs. The learned counsel subsequently stating that his client had not quite understood the nature of the verdict.
The Judge said that judgment would be entered for the plaintiff for 150l., costs to follow the event. ___ The Era (22 November, 1890 - Issue 2722) BUCHANAN V. LANGTRY.
_____ In the Court of Queen’s Bench, on Thursday, the case of Buchanan v. Langtry came before Mr Justice Charles and a Common Jury. Great interest was shown in the proceedings, the court being crowded.
The action was brought by Mr Robert Buchanan, the dramatic author, against Mrs Lillie Langtry, who is now the lessee and manageress of the Princess’s Theatre, to recover damages, laid at £2,000, for alleged breach of a contract to open her New York theatrical season last year with a play written by the plaintiff. Mrs Langtry admitted making the contract, but pleaded that one of its terms was that she should not be bound to accept the drama unless it was suited to her own powers and style of acting; that the plaintiff’s play did not suit her or her company, and therefore she was not liable. Further, the defendant counterclaimed for £150, which she had paid the plaintiff in respect of the play. Mr Winch, Q.C., and Mr Studd appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr Le Breton for the defendant.
Mr Winch, in opening the case, said that the claim of his client was for a balance due to him for a play which he wrote for Mrs Langtry, who had already paid £150. In September, 1888, Mrs Langtry was desirous of having written for her a play which she might produce in New York. On Sept. 10th Mr Buchanan received a telegram asking him to meet Mrs Langtry on Friday, the 13th. On the 14th Mr Buchanan saw Mrs Langtry, and had a conversation as to her requirements. Mrs Langtry told him that she desired him to write a play which she might produce in New York, and of which she would take the chief part. Amongst other things Mrs Langtry told Mr Buchanan that she had been to Paris and had bought a number of very beautiful dresses, and that the scenes of the play were to be so arranged that she could wear these beautiful dresses. Accordingly Mr Buchanan, with a prudence that, as events turned out, was very wise, asked Mrs Langtry to give him an agreement. The agreement was written as follows:— Sept. 14th. Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for myself, on the terms proposed—viz., that I should pay you £150 down, and £150 on the delivery of the MS., and the sum of £50 weekly during my performances of the piece. It is understood that the above prepaid £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50 a-week. It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years. The piece is to be delivered to me in New York not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January in New York City. Yours truly, LILLIE LANGTRY. On the same day Mr Buchanan acknowledged the receipt of the letter, and reiterated the terms upon which the play was to be written. In the same letter he informed Mrs Langtry that she might rely upon him using very stringent efforts to write a play worthy of her talents. On the following Friday Mrs Langtry again wrote to Mr Buchanan, enclosing a cheque for £150, and saying that she would prefer not too long a cast, as “nice supers are hard to get in America, and impossible in some parts, though, of course, if necessary, they can be found.” In answer to Mr Buchanan, Mrs Langtry wrote the names of the company, and said that there must be “ a strong lover’s part” in the piece, as well as a strong part that she could offer to Mr Coghlan, as “Mr Calvert was not a good stage lover.” “Of course,” continued Mrs Langtry, “you will make me a woman’s, and not a girl’s part.” Upon receiving the deposit, Mr Buchanan put on one side all his other work, and set to work to write the play. The play, which was called Lady Gladys, he had not read, though he understood that his learned friend had read it. [Mr Lockwood—Quite enough of it.] Mr Winch pointed out that Mr Buchanan had a very great interest in writing a play that would have a long run. Some time afterwards Mr Buchanan wrote to Mrs Langtry, asking her if there was truth in the rumour given in all the English newspapers, that she was to reopen the Fifth Avenue Theatre with a revival of Macbeth. “I trust,” said Mr Buchanan, “that this is not true, as it would amount to a breach of your contract with me. If, however, you desire to change your plans, we had better come to some amicable arrangement, as, your season in New York being short, I shall be a heavy loser. I am, however, quite prepared to meet you in any way.” To that letter Mr Buchanan got an answer, in which nothing was said about the revival of Macbeth. That letter said:— By this post I return your MS., in sending which I venture to think that you must have made a mistake, as it is so very unlike what you promised. I hope you have discovered the error, and that the right play is now on the way to New York. If, however, it is the play you intended for me, I may tell you that it is not of the slightest service. The part is weak, as is the play. It is unsympathetic, and the surroundings nil. You must remember what we arranged for was a play with a heroine star part, strong, emotional, and sympathetic, and a hero’s part weighty and powerful, such as I could offer to Mr. Coghlan. You have placed me in a serious dilemma. I desired and promised to produce a new play in New York, and relied upon you. Now, at the last moment, I am obliged to seek other plays, for I cannot produce a play so unworthy of you and of me. After that letter, Mr Buchanan made an effort to compromise the matter, and was unwilling to let Mrs Langtry have the play. Unfortunately no settlement had been arrived at, and the question was now left for the decision of the jury.
Mr Robert Buchanan was called and examined by Mr Winch. He stated that he was a dramatic author. On Sept. 14th Mrs Langtry requested him to write for her a play which should, as far as possible, be suited to her abilities as an actress. She said that she required the play to open her season in New York in the following January, and desired him to deliver it by Nov. 30th. She said that she would leave the material and the treatment of the play entirely in his hands. Thereupon he spoke of terms, and said that he thought that fair terms would be £50 for every week she played the piece. He asked for the usual deposit down, and so much on the delivery of the MS. To these terms she assented. Mrs Langtry, during the interview, wrote the agreement given in the opening. A day or so afterwards he received a cheque for £150. Mrs Langtry stating that she had not a banking account in London, and would have to open one. The play was written and was delivered on Nov. 30th, notwithstanding great difficulty in finding Mrs Langtry. Lady Gladys was a play that he had written with the best of his ability, and was a play in which Mrs Langtry’s part would be that of a “star.” Mrs Langtry stated that she had bought some good modern dresses in Paris, and desired to use them. There would be four changes.
Cross-examined by Mr Lockwood—The question of dress was merely as to period?—No; the play was to be a modern play.
Where was that discussed?—During our conversation. She asked for a piece n which she could use modern costumes.
Are you sure it was on Sept. 14th only?—I saw her on more than one occasion. I saw her, I think, on the previous day.
Was the contract partly made on the 13th?—We discussed whether I would write a play.
She said particularly that she did not want a girl’s part?—That was put in the letter. I should never have thought of writing her a girl’s part—in the theatrical sense.
When did you set to work?—Practically at once after I got the deposit.
Did you express pleasure at writing a part for Mr Coghlan?—Not in the least; why should I?
What part was for Mr Coghlan?—Edgar Vane. I was not particular that he should play it.
As I understand the play, Mrs Langtry’s part was that of the daughter of a broken-down earl?—Yes.
There is no harm in breaking down an earl?—Theatrically, I suppose, no.
The main act turned upon the shooting of a dog which was to appear on the stage with Mrs Langtry?—That is an incident of the first act.
In the direction we are told that the dog must be trained to carry out the business of the scene?—Yes.
Where was Mrs Langtry to get this intelligent dog?—Almost any retriever would do, as all that the dog had to do was to follow his mistress about.
Did you indicate where Mrs Langtry could get such a dog?—I could have sent her one. There could be no difficulty, as any retriever would follow his mistress.
A great deal turned on the dog?—No; he was not killed on the stage. In the play Lady Gladys marries, under an assumed name, a man named Gascoigne, and obtains from him a deed of gift, with which she returns to England in order to turn out the father of her husband.
Does she not do that merely out of revenge?—Not exactly out of revenge alone, but partly to repossess herself of her father’s property.
But her father had died? He is like the dog; he dies?—Yes, he practically dies on the stage. He faints on the stage.
Yes, but all people that faint on the stage do not die?—No, I did not say so.
When Lady Gladys returns she turns out the old man?—Not absolutely; she makes it unpleasant for him.
I don’t mean that she takes him neck and crop; she orders him off the premises?—Yes.
Then she ascertains that during her father’s poverty he was in receipt of anonymous gifts from Edgar Gascoigne; her heart melts, and then curtain?—That is a very ad captandum description.
I have left out the humour.—You have left out a good deal. You might describe Hamlet or Macbeth in the same way.
I have left out the humour. I will read a passage, and will ask you to call my attention to any other portion of the play which you consider more humorous. There is a person who plays the part of Major Fitz Herbert, an officer on half-pay—and very dear at the price—and a Mrs Pope. Speaking to Mrs Pope the Major says, “I say Mrs Pope, what a jolly story that was of yours about the fellah who went to India, and when he got back found his wife had married another fellah.” Mrs. Pope (referring to some book she had written)— “Oh, ‘Twice Wedded,’ an early effort.” Major— “Haw, haw! An idea! Why don’t you write a story about a woman who has worn mourning for two husbands walking in a garden, and call it ‘Twice Weeded.’ Haw! haw! you are welcome to the title.” Mr Lockwood (continuing)—You take that as humorous?—It is meant to be so. It is meant to be as you read it.
Can you call my attention to any funnier part?—I don’t pretend that it is funny.
Is this a serious play?—Yes.
Show me a livelier passage.—I don’t think you have any right to read passages like that.
The Judge—If you read She Stoops to Conquer like that no one would laugh at it.
Mr Lockwood apologised for his want of histrionic ability, and resumed his cross-examination.—Do you really consider the part of Lady Gladys a sympathetic part?—Yes.
You were to be the sole arbiter as to whether it was sympathetic?—Yes; but I offered a compromise afterwards without being able to get a hearing. The contract was broken before that, as she was then rehearsing Macbeth, as the English newspapers and Mr Coghlan, if you call him, will tell you.
Do you suggest that Mrs Langtry had made up her mind to reject your play before it reached her, and that after paying £150?—Yes, I do.
In re-examination Mr Buchanan said that the characters from whose parts Mr Lockwood had read were known in theatrical parlance as comic reliefs. The speech was in character with the man who spoke it.
In contrast with the tragedy of Mrs Langtry?—Yes.
This concluded the case for the plaintiff.
Mr Lockwood, in opening the case for the defendant, pointed out that Mr Buchanan stood in a very different position from that which would be occupied by a painter who had been commissioned to paint a portrait. Mr Buchanan was bound by the promise he had made and by the contract into which he had entered. And really, in respect of the promise, there appeared to be not very much dispute between Mr Buchanan and Mrs Langtry. Mrs Langtry asked the plaintiff to write a play upon terms, one of which was that the leading star part for herself should be strong and sympathetic. She started for America, looking forward to the production of a new play which she had promised to bring forward in New York. He regretted that the plaintiff had thought fit to impute to Mrs Langtry dishonourable conduct of which she could never be capable. The plaintiff’s suggestion was that before seeing the play, and after paying a deposit of £150, Mrs Langtry had determined to throw up the piece, and to produce Macbeth. That statement was absolutely unfounded. It was unjust, as well as untrue, and was unworthy of the talented man who had made it. The case might well have been conducted without introducing so envenomed and unfair a suggestion. He contended that the part provided for Mrs Langtry was that of a woman who could have excited no sympathy in any audience. Lady Gladys might have been played with success by some actresses, though she was unsuitable for Mrs Langtry, being a woman who acted throughout from vengeful motives—a woman who married fraudulently under an assumed name, and who obtained by fraud a deed of gift that enabled her to turn out of doors her husband’s father. He urged that Mr Buchanan had not fulfilled his part of the contract in providing a character suited to the powers of Mrs Langtry, and that he was therefore not entitled to a verdict.
Mrs Langtry, examined by Mr Lockwood, said that in 1888 she was about to go on tour in America, and was anxious to produce a new play in New York. She saw Mr Buchanan in September, and asked him to write a modern play with a strong sympathetic part. Mr Buchanan asked who was in her company. She replied there were Mr Coghlan and Mr Everill. Mr Buchanan expressed pleasure at finding Mr Coghlan in the company, as he considered him a good actor, and added that he would write a part worthy of Mr Coghlan. Mr Buchanan promised to let her know something of the plot before she sailed, but he wrote saying that he had not been able to think of a plot. She was, she believed, in Toronto when she received the play in December.
Mr Lockwood—Is it true to suggest that you had determined to reject the play before seeing it?—It is not true.
Is it the fact that you had put Macbeth in rehearsal before receiving the play?—Not until three weeks afterwards at New York.
Was this a strong and sympathetic part provided for you?
Mr Winch objected that this was not an admissible question, inasmuch as there was no such stipulation in the contract.
After some argument his Lordship pointed out that whatever may have passed in conversation the parties had, in the most formal manner, reduced their contract to writing.
Mr Lockwood contended that Mrs Langtry had stipulated for a leading “star” part for herself, and Mr Buchanan must be taken to have understood what the capabilities of the actress were.
The Judge said that the contract, according to the learned counsel, was for a strong and sympathetic part. The author said he had supplied such a part. Who was to decide?
Mr Lockwood supposed the jury must decide.
The Judge asked if it was proposed that the jury should read the play?
Mr Lockwood said he himself had not had time to read the play, though he should have no objection to taking a part in it. In a case in which he appeared for Mr Herman Merivale, he had to read the play to Mr Justice Field. He did not know how much his Lordship heard of it.
The Judge said that it the highest efforts of dramatic genius were to be measured by Mr Lockwood’s success on the previous occasion, the matter would be left pretty much where it was.
The learned counsel was ultimately allowed to ask Mrs Langtry whether the part was a sympathetic one, and suited to her.—Witness said it certainly was not. The part was one which could not command the sympathy or interest of the audience. Her part was that of a mean and vindictive character. It seemed to her that Lady Gladys cared more about the death of the dog than about the death of her father.
The Judge intimated that it was hardly necessary to go into that.
Mr Winch (to Mr Lockwood)—You introduced the dog.
Mr Lockwood—Well, De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
In cross-examination, Mrs Langtry denied that she had resolved to reject Mr Buchanan’s play before she received it, or that she had decided to produce Macbeth. She had put Macbeth in rehearsal merely as a matter of precaution. She opened in New York with Peril, and followed it with As In a Looking-Glass. She knew nothing as to whether the play she rejected had subsequently turned out a success.
The case was adjourned.
On Friday Mr Frederick Augustus Everill, examined by r Le Breton, said that he was an actor of thirty-eight years’ experience, and had been in Mrs Langtry’s company for seven years.
Are you able to form an opinion as to what would be a strong and sympathetic part for Mrs Langtry?—Yes.
Mr Winch—Of course, I raise the same objection as before.
The Judge—I take note of the objection.
Mr Le Breton (resuming his examination)—Did you read the play Lady Gladys?—Yes.
Was the part of Lady Gladys such as you would describe as a strong, emotional, and sympathetic part?—No.
Was it such a part as would have the slightest chance of success?
The Judge—That must be a matter for conjecture.
Mr Lockwood—I respectfully agree as to that. I am, however, entitled to the answer as to whether or not the part was a strong and sympathetic part suited to Mrs Langtry’s powers.
Mr Winch—Limited in that way, I have nothing to ask the witness.
Mr Lockwood—There is one point which I think I can get from Mr Everill. You have a diary for 1888, in which you have put down your various engagements. Will you say on what date you were at Toronto?—From Nov. 29th to Dec. 2d.
On what date did you open at New York?—On Jan. 7th.
The Judge—With what did you open?—With Peril.
What was the next piece?—As In a Looking-Glass.
How long did that run?—For a week; until the 19th.
And then?—Macbeth, on the 21st. And after that we had to use our répertoires, as we had nothing else.
The Judge—On what date did the season terminate? Witness—We left New York for Philadelphia on March 16th, and returned to New York for a fortnight.
The Judge—When did the season terminate at the Fifth Avenue Theatre? Witness—On March 7th.
Mr Lockwood—An original comedy would have been a success in New York?—Yes.
Even “the immortal bard” will not always draw?—Not at the Avenue.
Cross-examined by Mr Winch—Were not Peril and As In a Looking-Glass put on because you were not ready to produce Macbeth?—I don’t think that that was the intention of Mrs Langtry. She was anxious to get a new play which we could have produced in New York on Jan. 7th. Such a play could have been produced more readily than Macbeth.
Mr Lockwood—I suppose you have to look forward a little way ahead in theatrical matters?—We should do.
This concluded the evidence for the defendant.
The Judge said that the question was whether, upon the evidence, the defendant had been furnished with a strong and sympathetic part.
Mr Lockwood observed that he did not contend that Mrs Langtry’s opinion was to be final. If he had suggested that it would not have been necessary for him to call Mr Everill.
The Judge said it seemed to him that the entire question was whether the part was a strong and sympathetic one.
Mr Lockwood—Whether it was a part suited to the style and powers of the actress.
The Judge—The whole of her evidence goes to show that the part was unsuited to her, and in that opinion she is corroborated by a member of the company.
Mr Lockwood submitted that the question was whether Mr Buchanan undertook to write a part which was strong and sympathetic, and whether he had fulfilled his contract.
After some further conversation the Judge said it would be useless to read the play to the Jury. Anyone who had the slightest knowledge of dramatic literature knew perfectly well that the reading of a play in the study frequently gave no indication as to how it would act. His own opinion was that there was no evidence which he ought to leave to the Jury; but he would ask them whether it was a part of the bargain that the play should, in Mrs Langtry’s opinion, be one which was suited to her.
Mr Lockwood repeated that he had never presented the case as one in which Mrs Langtry’s opinion was to be final.
The Judge said he should ask the Jury whether what passed upon the 13th September was part of the bargain, and if so, whether the bargain was fulfilled.
Mr Lockwood, in addressing the jury, said the two questions which he understood his lordship intended to leave to them was, first, as to whether the conversation deposed to by Mrs Langtry was in fact part of the bargain between herself and Mr Buchanan; and, secondly, supposing they should be of opinion that that was so, whether Mr Buchanan had carried out his bargain with her. The first step in the inquiry was for them to satisfy themselves that there was a conversation between Mrs Langtry and Mr Buchanan on Sept. 13th. It was a very odd circumstance that when Mr Buchanan himself had an opportunity in his examination-in-chief of detailing his account of the transaction there was no reference whatever to anything which took place on Sept, 13th, but they found Mr Buchanan, by his particulars, stated that the contract was one partly verbal and partly in writing, and, being pressed as to the verbal part of it, he said it depended upon conversations which took place on Sept. 13th and 14th. He hoped to show conclusively by the letter of Mr Buchanan himself that on Sept. 14th the defendant stated that he was recapitulating an agreement previously entered into between Mrs Langtry and himself. The question was—When could this have happened? There was only one time suggested—viz., Sept. 13th. In his letter Mr Buchanan said:—“I herewith acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date, recapitulating our agreement as follows,” and in his last paragraph he said, “To all this I once more agree.” When had he done it before? On Sept. 13th in the conversation with her.
His Lordship said there was no doubt that the conversation took place, but the question was as to the contract.
Mr Lockwood said he was endeavouring to show the jury how the conversation related to the contract. In the letter of Sept. 14th, copied by Mrs Langtry, she said:—“I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for myself.” If her story were true, Mr Buchanan had already accepted the responsibility of writing a part which should be strong for her, and it was not necessary for her to go further, and insist that the whole of the conversation should be given. Supposing the Jury were of opinion that the conversation took place, and accepted the version given by Mrs Langtry, the question to be put to them was whether or not it was part of the contract.
After a brief summing-up by the Judge, the Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, damage £150. On the application of counsel, the learned Judge gave judgment with costs. |
|
