BUCHANAN AND THE LAW - 2

“Heredity”

The Times (19 December, 1891 - p.7)

     CLAIM AGAINST MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—In the Westminster County Court yesterday, the case of “Greenberg v. Buchanan” came before Judge Bayley. The claim was for £89 for advertisements inserted in various newspapers for Mr. Robert Buchanan, the dramatist. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant intended to have the play Heredity run at the Avenue Theatre. The manager and lessee was Mr. Henry Lee, and the orders were given by the last-named for advertisements to be inserted in the newspapers. Although Mr. Lee gave the orders, Mr. Buchanan altered the form of the advertisements. On one occasion defendant complained that more prominence was given to the farce than to the play, and he had the advertisements altered accordingly. A cheque for £34 was given by the defendant to Lee, who endorsed it. Mr. Buchanan received it back and then he handed it to the plaintiff’s clerk. The whole account came to £122. It was admitted that the account was entered in all cases in the name of Lee. The defendant was called, and in reply to his counsel he said that he had an agreement with Mr. Lee, who was entitled to give orders for advertisements on his behalf. Lee was not to be found. He had gone to America. His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

___

The Era (19 December, 1891 - Issue 2778)

ROBERT BUCHANAN AND HENRY LEE.
_____

     In the Westminster County Court, on Friday, the case of Grunberg v. Buchanan came on for hearing before his Honour, Judge Bayley. The plaintiffs, who are advertising contractors, sought to recover a balance of account of £87 19s. 1d., for advertisements inserted to the order of the defendant, in respect of the production of Heredity, at the Avenue Theatre.
     Mr Moyses, for the plaintiffs, said that for some time prior to the production of Heredity his clients had been advertising another production, known as The Henrietta, run under the management of Mr Henry Lee, but that gentleman was always regarded by the plaintiffs as a “man of straw,” to whom they would in no case give credit, and they therefore insisted upon being paid day by day for the advertisements which were inserted. On May 23d last Lee’s advertisements in respect of The Henrietta ceased, and then Buchanan and Lee appeared to have entered into an arrangement for the production of Heredity. On May 20th, and on several subsequent dates, the plaintiffs’ canvasser called at the Avenue Theatre, and on each occasion saw both Lee and Buchanan. On May 23d an order was given for advertising Heredity, which was to be produced on June 2d, and Buchanan gave instructions from time to time as to the form which the advertisements should take. On June 3d the plaintiffs’ representative asked for payment of the account up to that date, and a bill was then produced for £34 0s. 3d. Buchanan drew a cheque, and made it payable to Lee. On June 5th plaintiffs’ man again saw Lee at the Hotel Métropole, and Buchanan gave further instructions, and said that he was the person to be looked to for payment. On the following Sunday the plaintiffs’ representative again saw Buchanan, who asked him for his private address, in order that he might communicate with him if it was necessary, with a view to arranging further advertisements. On the evening of the same day Buchanan sent a telegram to the plaintiffs’ representative, asking him to come at once and arrange for further important advertisements. On the following Tuesday, June 9th, the plaintiff saw Buchanan at the theatre and asked him for payment of the account, and he promised it on the following day. On the same evening Buchanan stopped the insertion of any further advertisements, but did not pay the cheque. On the following day he wrote to the plaintiffs, and said that as all the arrangements had been made through Lee, the payment must also be paid through him. On June 13th the plaintiffs again applied for payment, and the defendant then said that he had paid the money to Lee.
     Mr Harry Boucher said he conducted the plaintiffs’ business both with Lee and Buchanan. So far as The Henrietta was concerned, Lee was liable, but they (the plaintiffs), would not give him credit, and insisted upon payment day by day. The first advertisements which were inserted for Buchanan appeared on May 21st, and referred to the production of Heredity. On the following Saturday Lee paid everything that was due from him for The Henrietta. Later in the day witness saw Buchanan, who told him to reduce the advertisements in certain papers, as they were costing too much money. On May 26th he had an interview with Buchanan and Lee on the stage at the Avenue, and Buchanan then told him he could have his money daily, or even hourly, if he liked, but it was ultimately agreed that the account should be a weekly one. In pursuance of that arrangement the accounts were rendered weekly. On May 29th Buchanan gave further instructions for alterations to be made in the advertisements. On the night prior to the production of the piece witness went to the theatre and asked for payment, and Buchanan then said he had not got his cheque-book with him, but would pay on the following day. Two days later the defendant did give his cheque for the sum then due. The cheque was made payable to Lee, and he endorsed it. On several subsequent dates interviews took place, and Buchanan gave instructions from time to time until the piece was withdrawn. On Tuesday, June 9th, the advertisements ceased in consequence of instructions given by Buchanan. It was not until after that date that the defendant ever attempted to repudiate the account.
     Cross-examined—Lee’s management of the Avenue ceased on May 23d, and he was not looked to for any payment after that date. The first instructions for advertising Heredity came through Lee on behalf of Buchanan, and Buchanan was, from first to last, regarded as the responsible party. The accounts were always rendered to Lee and not to Buchanan. He (witness) would swear positively that he had on several occasions received instructions from Buchanan in respect of the advertisements, but he could not say that he actually gave the orders for them.
     Mr Leopold Grunberg was called, and said he was one of the plaintiffs in the action. From first to last he considered he was giving credit to Mr Robert Buchanan. He knew Lee by repute, and certainly never would have given him credit, as he had done Buchanan in this case. He could not say where Lee was now, but noticed that he was not in court.
     For the defence Mr Robert Buchanan was called, and said he entered into arrangement with Lee for the production of Heredity, and to some extent Lee acted as his agent for the insertion of advertisements. He was perfectly certain that the plaintiffs knew what the arrangement was. He admitted that he agreed with Lee to be liable for the first week’s payments, and that was how it came about that he paid the first cheque which had been referred to. He had paid Lee money in respect of this and other accounts, and in fact had paid him everything which he had claimed.
     Cross-examined—Lee had eloped to America, but he (witness) would swear that he paid Lee everything which he demanded.
     At this point in the case the learned judge interposed, and remarked that Mr Buchanan had admitted that Lee was authorised to act as his agent, and he (the judge) thought that put an end to the case. Judgment therefore must be for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs, as there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware of any existing agreement between the defendant and Lee.

___

[On July 24th, 1891, Henry Lee began a libel action against The Era concerning a letter which was published from Mr. W. H. Perrette, criticising Lee’s business practices. The case never came to court but in June, 1892, The Era printed a series of ‘witness statements’ which it had intended to use in the trial. One of these was from Robert Buchanan:

The Era (25 June, 1892 - Issue 2805)

MR ROBERT BUCHANAN’S STATEMENT.

     I am a dramatic author. In 1891 I entered into an arrangement with Henry Lee for him to produce a piece of mine, called The Gifted Lady, at the Avenue Theatre, for a week certain, I paying any losses on the production, and having the option of continuing the piece for a longer period, if necessary. I decided to withdraw the piece at the end of the first week, and handed his manager, Mr Arthur Yates, two cheques payable to order of Henry Lee, one for £30 about, and one for £68 odd, to pay Greenberg and Co.’s bill for advertising. I heard nothing more for some weeks, when Greenberg and others applied to me for payment of their accounts. I repudiated my liability. Greenberg sued me for amount, and obtained judgment.

___

Since the majority of the other statements do not concern Buchanan or this case, there is no point transcribing the rest of the article, but for those who are interested in the minutiae of the Victorian theatre the original copy is available here.

Reviews of Buchanan’s satire on Ibsen, whose original title, Heredity was subsequently changed to The Gifted Lady, are available in the Plays section.]

_____

“The Charlatan”

The Pall Mall Gazette (3 May, 1894 - Issue 9082)

MR. BUCHANAN IN THE COUNTY COURT.

TYPEWRITING “THE CHARLATAN.”

     There was quite an interesting moment in the Bloomsbury county-court yesterday morning. Miss Stubington, typist, of 122, Stamford-street, sued Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known author, for the sum of £3. This money was claimed for copies of plays, including, among others, the recent Haymarket piece, “The Charlatan.” Miss Stubington gave evidence to the effect that she had type-written the play in question having paid several visits to Mr. Buchanan’s residence for the purpose. The defendant had been several times applied to for a settlement of the claim, but had made no response. He did not appear in answer to the summons, and in his absence judgment was given for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

_____

Buchanan’s Bankruptcy

[In 1894, Robert Buchanan was declared bankrupt. In Chapter 24 of her biography, Harriett Jay gives the background to the story:
“By this time he was not only far off independence, but heavily in debt. His last stake was a comedy of which he was part author, and for which he engaged the famous Mrs. Langtry, then anxious to return to the stage. Having secured a small financial backing, quite inadequate as the issue proved, he took the Opera Comique, and produced there in June, 1894, the “Society Butterfly,” with Mrs. Langtry in the chief female part, and such excellent artistes as Mr. Fred Kerr and the late Miss Rose Leclercq to support the leading lady. All would have gone very well, but for one unfortunate contretemps. The fate of the play absolutely depended on a certain dance to be performed by the leading actress at the end of the third act, but at the last moment Mrs. Langtry was unable to do the dance, and some ineffective tableaux vivants had to be substituted in a hurry. These tableaux provoked a stormy reception and led to very adverse criticisms in the Press. The play, however, ran for some weeks to very fair business, and was actually promising to develop into a popular success when the managerial exchequer was found to be empty. At that moment a creditor served Mr. Buchanan with a petition in bankruptcy. His house of cards collapsed, and a few months later he was standing in the bankruptcy court, a practically ruined man.”]

The Scotsman (15 June, 1894 - p.2)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.—Under the failure of Mr Robert Buchanan, the well-known author, which took place on Tuesday, it appears that the liabilities are between £14,000 and £15,000, part of which is secured. He states that he has a lease of 25 Maresfield Gardens, of which there are two years to run, the rent being £195 per annum, and the landlord is in possession for £97.10s. There is also £62 due for Queen’s taxes. The furniture (£100), he states, was his, and was assigned to trustees about four years ago in trust for his wife’s sister, Miss Harriet Jay, that he has no assets except some copyrights, and no cash in hand, and the bank account is overdrawn. Messrs Shearman & Rayner are the solicitors to the proceedings.

___

The Times (15 June, 1894 - p.14)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—A receiving order having been made on the 12th inst. against Mr. Robert Buchanan, described as an author, and residing in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, the debtor has since attended the Court for preliminary examination, and has given some details with reference to the position of his affairs. He estimates his liabilities at from £14,000 to £15,000. His residence is rented at £195 per year, and in consequence of the payments having fallen into arrear the landlord has entered into possession. The furniture had been assigned, and the debtor states that he has no available assets except some copyrights, his banking account being overdrawn. The receiving order was granted upon the petition of a judgment creditor.

___

The Era (16 June, 1894 - Issue 2908)

Mr. Buchanan’s Bankruptcy.

     In the Bankruptcy Court, on Tuesday, before Mr Registrar Giffard, the registrar made a receiving order under a petition presented against Mr Robert Buchanan, described as of Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, author. It appears that the liabilities are between £14,000 and £15,000, part of which is secured. The debtor states that he has a lease of 25, Maresfield-gardens, of which there are two years to run, the rent being £195 per annum, but that the landlord is now in possession for £97 10s. There is also £52 due for Queen’s taxes. The furniture, valued at £100, belonged to the debtor, but was assigned to trustees about four years ago in trust for his wife’s sister. The debtor adds that he has no assets except some copyrights and no cash in hand, the bank account being overdrawn.

___

Aberdeen Weekly Journal (16 June, 1894)

     FOR the recent extraordinary asperities of Mr Robert Buchanan’s tongue and pen there is now sufficient explanation by his appearance in the Bankruptcy Court. The Bohemian Bob has always been distinguished for his eccentricities — perhaps of late years more for these than for products of genius — but within the last few months he has out-Buchananed Buchanan. He has transformed himself into a literary Ishmael, whose hand is against every man, with the inevitable consequence that every man’s hand is against him. The quarrel with Clement Scott is not a solitary instance. One of the latest and worst acts of his Philistinism is burlesquing the revered dead. This is done in “A Highland Pass,” the principal story in a collection of north country tales and ballads from his pen. In this story he stoops to write a satirical sketch of Alexander Smith. The deceased poet figures as “Walter Syme,” pattern designer, Paisley, but the references are so thinly disguised, and the leading incidents of the poet’s life so closely followed, that identification is all too easy. Making “Walter Syme” Registrar of the University of Aberdeen instead of Alexander Smith actually occupying a similar post in Edinburgh is pretty transparent transplanting. References in the very worst taste to Smith’s wife and her relatives in the Highlands are perfectly inexcusable. It ill becomes Robert Buchanan to do this sort of thing. No one denies his claim to talent. His “God and the Man” and “The Shadow of the Sword” are vastly superior to the ordinary run of novel. But he is not in the same boat with Alexander Smith. He is scarcely worthy of the honour of being allowed to place a flower on the poet’s grave; and therefore he should never have attempted to plant upon it stinging thistles and undergrowth. For purity of diction and sublimity of thought alone the author of “Dreamthorp” and “City Poems” far outstrips his critic. Let the latter remember, and be humble, what Byron said of the Edinburgh reviewers—

A man must serve his time to every trade
Save censure—critics all are ready-made.

In the same work Buchanan satirises the late George Gilfillan as Professor Glenfinlas, mentioning some failings and foibles of that worthy old man. As if not satisfied, he also tilts at Carlyle as “Thomas Ercildoune.” Only two things could account for such wretched conduct—either colic or creditors. It turns out to be the latter.

___

Aberdeen Weekly Journal (27 June, 1894)

     Scots living in London say that Robert Buchanan is not treated fairly by the English press. Whenever he lays himself open to criticism for something said or done, as is the case once in a while, the papers speak of him as a cantankerous Scotsman. But whenever he does anything that is worthy of praise he is spoken of as “the brilliant English writer.”

___

The Times (6 July, 1894 - p.3)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—Under a receiving order granted on the 12th ult. against Robert Buchanan, author and dramatist, amended accounts have been submitted showing the liabilities to be £15,792, of which £15,672 are unsecured, and the only unencumbered assets disclosed by the debtor consist of his interest in certain books and plays upon which he places no value. From the observations of the Assistant Official Receiver (Mr. G. W. Chapman) and the statements of the debtor, it appears that for many years past he has been engaged in literary work, and has produced a considerable number of books and plays; he has also from time to time acted as manager of theatres in London and in America. His income, derived from royalties and general literary work, has during the last three years averaged about £1,500 per annum. His present insolvency is attributable to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to loss by non-production of a play (Dick Sheridan) in America; and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work and to losses by betting. The debtor states that he has kept no record of his financial transactions, but he approximately accounts for the deficiency of £15,672 shown on the statement of affairs as follows:—Losses incurred at the Lyric and Royalty theatres in 1890, £5,000; loss at the Opera Comique in the present year, £600; loss by purchase and sale of copyrights, £500; interest on borrowed money, £1,500; excess of household and other expenditure over income (apparently), £4,229; losses by betting, £1,200; money lent and given away, £1,000; loans through acceptances, £674; loss by bad debts, £584; and other small losses (to balance), £385. The Official Receiver states that the unsecured liabilities (£6,380) include upwards of £4,200 in respect of borrowed money and legal expenses. The creditors appearing as “fully and partly secured” (£8,970) are stated to hold charges on copyrights and royalties in various plays, &c.; the debtor states it is impossible to estimate the precise value of any of these securities. The amount appearing to be owing to “creditors for rent, &c.” (£541) includes £360 for six weeks’ rent of the Opera Comique Theatre. The Official Receiver adds that the first meeting of creditors was held on the 5th inst., and was adjourned until the 26th to enable the debtor to amend his scheme of arrangement by providing reasonable security for payment of not less than 7s. 6d. in the pound. The amended scheme has not yet been lodged.

___

The Era (7 July, 1894 - Issue 2911)

MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN’S BANKRUPTCY.
_____

     In the Bankruptcy Court on Thursday, before Mr E. Leadham Hough, Official Receiver, the first statutory meeting was held under a receiving order recently granted against Mr Robert Buchanan. From the preliminary examination of the debtor it appears that he resides in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, and during the last fifteen years he has written several books and plays, and has also acted as manager of theatres in London and also in America. In June, 1890, he produced two plays written by himself, The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, first at the Lyric Theatre, and subsequently at the Royalty, but they did not prove successful, and he incurred losses and liabilities to the amount of about £5,000 in respect of them. He subsequently entered into contracts for the production of other plays. The debtor states that his income has averaged about $1,500 per year, derived from royalties and from general literary work, and that his expenditure has amounted to about the same sum. About twenty years since a Civil Service pension of £100 was granted to him by Mr Gladstone in recognition of his merits as an author. He believes that he effected a private arrangement with his creditors about ten years ago, paying them a composition of 10s, in the pound. The debtor ascribes his present insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculations, to heavy payments of interest on borrowed money, and to the non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan, and to damaging newspaper attacks on his dramatic works, also to losses by betting.
     Several proofs having been dealt with, including one for £805 supported by Mr J. A. Bartram (solicitor) on behalf of Mr G. R. Sims, and which was admitted for voting purposes for £782.
     The Official Receiver said that a statement of affairs had been rendered, but it was in a very incomplete and imperfect form. The figures showed unsecured liabilities £5,980, in addition to Messrs Chatto and Windus, who were treated as fully secured for £120. The debts of partly secured creditors amounted to £8,750, and, as the debtor could not estimate the value of the securities, the whole sum was treated as likely to rank. There appeared to be practically no assets except bad debts, and for some time past there had been a deficiency, which was attributed to losses by bad debts and to other causes. The debtor had submitted a proposal to set aside one-third of his future income for the benefit of the creditors until they should be paid in full, but the Official Receiver pointed out that no security was provided for payment of the minimum statutory composition of 7s. 6d. in the pound.
     Some discussion followed, in the course of which the debtor said it was very difficult for a man who lived by his wits to find security for a composition. An endeavour was then made to pass a resolution for bankruptcy, but without success, and the proceedings resulted eventually in an adjournment for three weeks to enable the debtor to formulate a proposal with security, his statement of affairs to be amended in the meantime.

___

The New York Times (19 July, 1894)

Robert Buchanan’s Debts.

     LONDON, July 18.—The amended statement of the author and playwright, Robert Buchanan, was presented to the Bankruptcy Court to-day. The statement shows the liabilities of Mr. Buchanan to be £15,672 and says that there are no available assets. Mr. Buchanan was unable to appear in court owing to illness.

___

Y Genedl Cymreig (Caernarvon, Wales) (24 July, 1894 -Issue 901)

     Druan o Robert Buchanan! Yn y bankruptcy court y mae y cernodiwr gwaedwyllt hwn. Swn ei ddyledion yw 13843p, ac nid oes ganddo ddim i dalu. Er ei holl gieidd dra milain y mae Buchanan yn awdwr o allu, a gresyn ei fod yn y fath drybini. Fe ddylai’r wladwriaeth siorhau eu bara a’u caws i lenorion a beirdd.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (25 July, 1894 - Issue 9153)

IN THE LONDON BANKRUPTCY COURT TO-DAY.

THE AFFAIRS OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.

     The Official Receiver reported upon the affairs of Mr. Robert Buchanan, author, playwright, and theatrical manager. It appears from the debtor’s statements that his present insolvency is attributable to losses in connection with theatrical speculations, to heavy interest on borrowed money, to loss by non-production in America of the play “Dick Sheridan,” and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work and to losses by betting. The debtor states that he has kept no record of his financial transactions, but he approximately accounts for the deficiency of £15,672 shown on the statement of affairs as follows: Losses incurred in the Lyric and Royalty Theatres in 1890, £5,000; loss at the Opera Comique in 1894, £600; loss by purchase and sale of copyrights, £500; interest on borrowed money, £1,500; excess of household and other expenditure over income, apparently, £4,229; losses by betting, £1,200; money lent and given away, £1,000; loans through acceptances, about £674; loss by debts, £584; other small losses, to balance, £385.

___

The Times (26 July, 1894 - p.14)

(Before MR. E. LEADHAM HOUGH, Official Receiver.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was the first statutory meeting held under a receiving order recently granted against Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known author and theatrical manager. From the preliminary examination of the debtor it appears that he resides in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, and during the last 15 years he has written several books and plays, and has also acted as manager of theatres in London and also in America. In June 1890 he produced two plays written by himself, the Bride of Love and Nancy, first at the Lyric Theatre, and subsequently at the Royalty, but they did not prove successful, and he incurred losses and liabilities to the amount of about £5,000 in respect of them. He subsequently entered into contracts for the production of other plays. The debtor states that his income has averaged about £1,500 per year, derived from royalties and from general literary work, and that his expenditure has amounted to about the same sum. About 20 years since a Civil Service pension of £100 was granted to him by Mr. Gladstone in recognition of his merits as an author. He believes that he effected a private arrangement with his creditors about ten years ago, paying them a composition of 10s. in the pound. The debtor ascribes his present insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations, to heavy payments of interest on borrowed money, and to the non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan, and to damaging newspaper attacks on his dramatic works, also to losses by betting.
     Several proofs having been dealt with, including one for £805 supported by Mr. J. A. Bartram (solicitor) on behalf of Mr. G. R. Sims, and which was admitted for voting purposes for £782,
     The OFFICIAL RECEIVER said that a statement of affairs had been rendered, but it was in a very incomplete and imperfect form. The figures showed unsecured liabilities £5,980, in addition to Messrs. Chatto and Windus, who were treated as fully secured for £120. The debts of partly-secured creditors amounted to £8,750, and, as the debtor could not estimate the value of the securities, the whole sum was treated as likely to rank. There appeared to be practically no assets except bad debts, and for some time past there had been a deficiency, which was attributed to losses by bad debts and to other causes. The debtor had submitted a proposal to set aside one-third of his future income for the benefit of the creditors until they should be paid in full, but the Official Receiver pointed out that no security was provided for payment of the minimum statutory composition of 7s. 6d. in the pound.
     Some discussion followed, in the course of which the debtor said it was very difficult for a man who lived by his wits to find security for a composition. An endeavour was then made to pass a resolution for bankruptcy, but without success, and the proceedings resulted eventually in an adjournment for three weeks to enable the debtor to formulate a proposal with security, his statement of affairs to be amended in the meantime.

___

The Era (28 July, 1894 - Issue 2914)

ROBERT BUCHANAN’S BANKRUPTCY.
_____

     In the Bankruptcy Court, on Wednesday, the Official Receiver reported upon the affairs of Mr Robert Buchanan. It appears from the debtor’s statements that he has for many years past been engaged in literary work, and has produced a considerable number of books and plays; he has also from time to time acted as manager of theatres in London and America; that his income derived from royalties and general literary work has, during the last three years, averaged £1,500 per annum; that his present insolvency is attributed to losses and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculations, to heavy interest on borrowed money, to loss by non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work, and to losses by betting. The debtor states that he has kept no record of his financial transactions, but he approximately accounts for the deficiency of £15,672 shown on the statement of affairs as follows:—Losses incurred in the Lyric and Royalty Theatres in 1890, £5,000; loss at the Opera Comique in 1894, £600; loss by purchase and sale of copyrights, £500; interest on borrowed money, £1,500; excess of household and other expenditure over income (apparently), £4,229; losses by betting, £1,200; money lent and given away, £1,000; loans through acceptances (about), £674; loss by bad debts, £584; other small losses (to balance), £385. The unsecured liabilities include upwards of £4,200 in respect of borrowed moneys and expenses. Creditors fully and partly secured are stated to hold charges on copyrights and royalties in various plays, &c. The debtor states it is impossible to estimate the precise value of any of these securities. The first meeting stands adjourned until the 26th inst., to enable the debtor to amend his scheme of arrangement by providing reasonable security for the payment of not less than 7s. 6d. in the pound.
     On Thursday an adjourned first meeting was held, but Mr Buchanan was stated to be unwell and unable to attend. On the former occasion the matter stood over to enable the debtor to provide security for the payment of the minimum statutory composition of &s. 6d. in the pound, but he had written to the official receiver pointing out that it was more difficult for a man who obtained his living by his pen to find security than an ordinary tradesman.
     The Chairman observed that they appeared to be no nearer a secured 7s. 6d. in the pound than they were before. There would be no further adjournment, and he should apply for an adjudication in the usual way.

___

Reynolds’s Newspaper (29 July, 1894 - Issue 2294)

ROBERT BUCHANAN’S AFFAIRS.
_____

     In the Bankruptcy Court, on Wednesday, accounts were issued under the failure of Robert Buchanan, showing unsecured liabilities £15,672, and no available assets. It appears from the debtor’s statements that for many years past he has been engaged in literary work, and has produced a considerable number of books and plays. He has also from time to time acted as manager of theatres in London and in America. His income, derived from royalties and general literary work, has during the last three years averaged about £1,500 per annum. He attributes his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculations, to heavy interest on borrowed money; to loss by non-production of a play (“Dick Sheridan”) in America, and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting. The debtor states that he has kept no record of his financial transactions, but the approximately accounts for the deficiency of £15,672 as follows: Losses incurred at the Lyric and Royalty Theatres in 1890, £5,000; loss at the Opera Comique in 1894, £600; loss by purchase and sale of copyrights, £500; interest on borrowed money, £1,500; apparent excess of household and other expenditure over income, £4,229; losses by betting, £1,200; money lent and given away, £1,000; losses through acceptances, about £674; loss by bad debts, £584; and other small losses (to balance), £385. The unsecured liabilities include upwards of £4,200 in respect of borrowed moneys and legal expenses. The creditors appearing as fully and partly secured are stated to hold charges on copyrights and royalties in various plays, &c., but the debtor states that it is impossible to estimate the precise value of any of these securities. The amount stated to be owing to creditors for rent, &c. (£541) includes £360 for six weeks’ rent of the Opera Comique Theatre. The only unencumbered assets disclosed by the debtor consist of his interest in certain plays and books, upon which he places no value. The household furniture is stated by the debtor to have been comprised in a deed of gift executed by him in 1890 in favour of his sister-in-law. A first meeting of creditors was held on Thursday to enable the debtor to amend his scheme of arrangement, by providing reasonable security for the payment of not less than &s. 6d. in the pound. Mr. Buchanan, it was stated, had written to the Official Receiver pointing out that it was more difficult for a man who obtained his living by his pen to find security than an ordinary tradesman. A Creditor submitted that the proper course would be to adjudge the debtor a bankrupt, and then there would be a chance of the creditors getting something. (Laughter.) The Chairman observed that they appeared to be no nearer a secured &s. 6d. in the pound than they were before, and he should apply for an adjudication in the usual course.

_____

SPECIAL NOTES AND GOSSIP.
_____

.....

     It is no very creditable feature in the insolvency of Mr. Robert Buchanan, the author, that his creditors are obliged to lose £1,200, spent by this writer in gambling transactions, connected with the turf. I would have little mercy on the man who returns as an item in bankruptcy proceedings betting losses. It is just like speculation with other people’s money, without their consent. A man of Mr. Buchanan’s age and knowledge ought to be ashamed of indulging in a practice which is only excusable in the imbecile and the unlearned, among whom Mr. Buchanan would not care to be classed.

___

The Times (9 August, 1894 - p.15)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     A sitting for public examination was held under the failure of Mr. Robert Buchanan, author and dramatist. His amended accounts show liabilities amounting to £15,792, of which £15,072 are unsecured, and the only unencumbered assets disclosed by the debtor consist of his interest in certain books and plays, upon which he is unable to place any value. He ascribes his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to loss by the non-production of a play (Dick Sheridan) in America; and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting.
     Mr. G. Wreford attended as Senior Official Receiver; Mr. M. Shearman, Mr. J. A. Bartrum, and Mr. Bennett appeared for creditors; and Mr. W. A. Colyer for the debtor.
     In reply to the SENIOR OFFICIAL RECEIVER, the debtor stated that he had resided for the last five years at South Hampstead. He had been connected with the theatrical profession for about 25 years, and during the last 30 years had written a number of books and plays. He had also been engaged as a theatrical manager in London and America. Up to July last he acted as manager at the Opera Comique in connexion with the play A Society Butterfly, which he had written in conjunction with Mr. Murray. He ought to have made money over it, but did not, and the play had now ceased to run. He had created charges upon his copyrights in various works, and only a few of them were free. He was entitled to royalties on The Moment After and The Coming Terror, but both these works had been before the public for some time, and were now rather “flat.” Since 1890 he had lost money on the production of various plays, including The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, which were produced at the Lyric and Royalty theatres, and which resulted in a loss of £5,000. The manager of an American theatre had undertaken to produce his play Dick Sheridan, but had failed to do so, and he (the debtor) alleged that the manager had taken the whole body of his play, and, having altered it, used the same title without paying him for it, the manager contending that he had not written the play. He considered that this course damaged his reputation as a literary man and his pocket as well. (Laughter.) He had not lost money on the Stock Exchange, but had incurred losses in other forms of betting, and had lost about £1,200 on the Turf. He had accommodated a friend by purchasing the picture called “The World’s Desire,” but it had never actually come into his possession. He paid for the picture by means of bills, upon which he was still liable. He did not know where the picture was at the present time. It was valued at £1,500, but he gave £450 only for it. He had possessed one horse and a carriage up to a recent date, but the former had been sold, and the latter returned to the person from whom it was hired. He had not defended any actions brought against him for the recovery of debts. He had instituted an action for libel against the Sketch in connexion with the plays Dick Sheridan and A Society Butterfly, and the matter was still pending. He considered that the libel was an attempt to sweep him from the earth of created beings altogether. (Laughter.) He had never kept any books in connexion with his theatrical ventures except a diary.
     The OFFICIAL RECEIVER.—What does your income amount to?
     The debtor said it was difficult to state any particular amount, because it all depended on “luck.” His profession was a gambling one, and if he produced a book which was a success, he would reap considerable benefit, but if it proved a failure he would lose. His average annual expenditure did not exceed £1,500 per annum. He did not consider that he was insolvent, but had been driven into a corner, and he thought he had a reasonable probability of paying his creditors out of his future earnings. Beyond the plays already mentioned he had written The Lights of Home, The Charlatan, and The Piper of Hamelin, and the books “Come Live with Me,” and “Nerissa.” He was desirous of paying a composition to his creditors, but had encountered some difficulty in the matter, as he was not aware of the exact claims against his estate, or of the value of his assets. He hoped to be able, with the assistance of friends, to provide sufficient security for 7s. 6d. in the pound, as required by the statute. For many years past he had been in the receipt of a pension from the Civil List, which was granted to him by Mr. Gladstone. His house was rented at £200 per annum, but he did not consider that this sum was too large considering the amount of his income. For several years past he had experienced “bad luck,” but was certain that he had not lived extravagantly.
     Mr. SHEARMAN also examined the debtor.
     By Mr. COLYER.—His betting losses had extended over a period of two or three years.
     His HONOUR ordered the examination to be concluded.

[Note:
I have not found any evidence that the libel action against the Sketch mentioned in the above report ever came to court, so it is not included in this section. Further information is available on the A Society Butterfly page.]

___

Aberdeen Weekly Journal (10 August, 1894)

THE AFFAIRS OF MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.
_____

     At the London Bankruptcy Court, a meeting has been held before Mr Registrar Giffard for the public examination of Robert Buchanan, the well-known author and playwright, who appeared to pass upon accounts showing unsecured debts £15,632, and no available assets. Creditors for £8750 partly secured hold charges upon his plays, “The Piper of Hamelin,” “Dick Sheridan,” “The Charlatan,” and an unfinished opera, “Adam and Eve;” also charges upon certain of his books, which he places no estimate upon. Amongst the debts appearing in the statement are those of Mr G. R. Sims for £805; Mr Albert Chevalier, £150; Mr Passmore Edwards, £250; Messrs L. and H. Nathan £200; dresses for “A Society Butterfly” and Mr J. Willing, jun., £200. A sum of £240 is due in respect of the rent of the Opera Comique. The failure is attributed to loss and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculations in 1890 at the Lyric and Royalty Theatres, £5000; to heavy interest on borrowed money, £1500; to loss by the non-production of the play, “Dick Sheridan,” in America, and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work, and to losses by betting, £1500. He states, further, that his loss on the production of “A Society Butterfly” at the Opera Comique recently was £600.

___

The Era (11 August, 1894 - Issue 2916)

MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN’S AFFAIRS.
_____

     On Wednesday, in the Court of Bankruptcy, before Mr Registrar Giffard, a sitting was held for the public examination of Mr Robert Buchanan, who for many years has been engaged in literary work, and has produced a considerable number of books and plays. The debtor has also acted as a theatrical manager in London and America, and he attributes his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculations, to heavy interest on borrowed money, loss by the non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work, and to losses by betting. The statement of affairs shows liabilities expected to rank £15,672, and no available assets.
     Mr Colyer, appearing for the debtor, said that an adjudication of bankruptcy had not yet been made, and it was his client’s intention to bring forward a proposal which he hoped would be satisfactory to his creditors.
     In reply to Mr Wreford, official receiver, the debtor said that he had been in the theatrical profession for twenty or twenty-five years, and had been an author for thirty years. He had been interested in theatrical matters practically up to the present time, his most recent venture being in connection with The Society Butterfly, a piece which he worked jointly with Mr Murray. A syndicate was formed, and they were to have a fourth of the profits which might accrue after satisfying the syndicate. He had assigned his share of the profits as security for £200. He had written numerous plays since 1889, his last one being The Society Butterfly. He had lost money in connection with that piece, also about £3,000 on The Bride of Love, and £2,000 on Sweet Nancy. He had also incurred a considerable loss in consequence of the non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan. Another piece was produced in imitation of his own, but he was thrown over, and his literary reputation had in consequence suffered, the impression being created that his play was not worth producing. He had not lost money on the Stock Exchange, but he had lost about £1,200 in another way—on the turf.
     The Official Receiver—What has been the amount of your income?
     The debtor replied that the question was not an easy one for him to answer. His was a gambling profession, in the sense that he might make a lot of money by writing a popular book, and, on the other hand, might incur a heavy loss. His expenditure might have amounted to £1,500 a-year. He was in the enjoyment of a Civil List pension.
     In reply to Mr Shearman, the debtor said it was possible he might, in borrowing money from the petitioning creditor, have stated to him that by making the loan he would save a stout ship from foundering.
     Mr Shearman—You are in the habit, I believe, of riding about in a horse and carriage?
     The Bankrupt—Certainly not in a horse—in a carriage; and I find that a very economical mode of conveyance.
     The examination was concluded.

___

Reynolds’s Newspaper (12 August, 1894 - Issue 2296)

SPECIAL NOTES AND GOSSIP.
_____

.....

     Robert Buchanan enjoys a pension from the State in recognition of his literary services. He is now in the Bankruptcy Court, and he admits having lost in two years £1,200 by betting. Surely this man is not entitled any longer to the bounty of the State.

___

The Times (30 November, 1894 - p.3)

(Sittings in Bankruptcy, before MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was an application by Mr. Robert Buchanan, described as an author and theatrical manager, of an address in South Hampstead, for an order of discharge. His amended statement of affairs showed unsecured debts to the amount of £15,672, and no available assets were disclosed.
     Mr. Egerton S. Grey attended as Assistant Official Receiver; and Mr. W. A. Colyer for the debtor.
     From the evidence and the report of the Senior Official Receiver (Mr. G. Wreford) it would appear that the debtor had been connected with the theatrical profession for many years, and that he had been employed as manager of theatres in London and America. He stated that his income derived from royalties and general literary work averaged about £1,500 per annum, but during the last year or two it had fallen short of that amount. He ascribed his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculation; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to the non-production of the play Dick Sheridan in America, and adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting. The debtor had not kept any record of his financial transactions, and the Official Receiver asserted that the deficiency of £15,672 shown in the amended accounts was only approximately and imperfectly accounted for, but was partly explained by losses, amounting to £5,000, at the Lyric and Royalty theatres in 1890. The debtor stated that these losses were incurred in consequence of the unsuccessful production of the plays The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, of which he was the author and which he brought out personally. The Official Receiver alleged that on the failure of these plays the debtor became aware that he was insolvent. Further, that in March last the debtor, jointly with another person, produced another play, A Society Butterfly, a syndicate being formed for that purpose, but this also proved unsuccessful and he incurred a loss of £1,500 thereby. Amongst the proofs lodged was one for £450, balance of rent at the Opera Comique, at the rate of £250 per month, another for £134 in respect of hire of costumes, and another for £250 for advertising. The Official Receiver submitted that the debtor was not justified in embarking in the undertakings referred to as he was insolvent at the time and had been pressed by creditors. Reference was also made to the circumstance that in 1893 the debtor purchased a picture, “The World’s Desire,” from one Rudolph Blind, to whom he gave his acceptances for £460 in payment. These he was unable to pay at maturity, and he stated that the picture never came into his possession. Further, that his household and personal expenditure had considerably exceeded his income. The debtor also partly accounted for the existing deficiency by losses through betting transactions amounting to £1,200, which, he stated, extended over two or three years. The Official Receiver opposed the application on account of the absence of available assets, and on the ground that the debtor had brought on or contributed to his bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations and unjustifiable extravagance in living, and by gambling.
     The report having been read, the ASSISTANT OFFICIAL RECEIVER said he did not desire to dictate the form of order to be made, but he submitted that this was a case in which the Court would direct the debtor to set aside a portion of his income for the benefit of the creditors. He was well known in this country as an author, and it appeared that he had been able to earn £1,500 a year by his writings. He had written a story for one of the Christmas numbers, and it was not to be supposed that he would write for nothing. In his public examination the debtor stated that if time had been allowed him he could have paid all his creditors out of his future earnings.
     Mr. COLYER addressed the Court on behalf of the debtor, and said that he did not dispute the offences alleged by the Official Receiver. It appeared from the statement of affairs that several creditors held charges upon the debtor’s works until their claims were satisfied in full. Those works were now producing large amounts, and it was anticipated that before long the secured creditors would be paid in full and a large surplus would become available for the unsecured creditors. With regard to the charge of rash and hazardous speculation, the debtor was advised by some of the leading men in his profession that A Society Butterfly would prove successful. Had it been so the debtor would not have found himself in his present position. In reference to the picture referred to in the report he submitted that no one had lost or gained by the transaction. Dealing with the application of the Assistant Official Receiver, he asked the Court not to decide the matter at present, as there was no evidence brought forward to support it. The Christmas story referred to was paid for some two years ago.
     MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD.—But the debtor’s books are widely known, and he is one of the few whose poetry is read.
     Mr. COLYER submitted that no evidence had been given to show that the debtor was still earning a considerable income.
     MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD, in giving judgment, said it appeared that the debtor had been able to earn £1,500 a year in the past by his writings, and there was no reason why he should not do so in the future. He was a man of great ability and versatility, and his works were very popular, and it was only reasonable that some provision should be made for the creditors. The offences alleged by the Official Receiver had not been displaced, and the order of the Court would be that the debtor be discharged subject to his setting aside one half of his income over and above £900 per annum until the unsecured creditors had received dividends amounting to 7s. 6d. in the pound, the debtor to file accounts annually of his receipts.

___

The Era (1 December, 1894 - Issue 2932)

MR. BUCHANAN’S BANKRUPTCY.
_____

     In the Bankruptcy Court on Thursday, before Mr Registrar Giffard, an application was made by Mr Robert Buchanan, described as an author and theatrical manager, of an address in South Hampstead, for an order of discharge. His amended statement of affairs showed unsecured debts to the amount of £15,672, and no available assets were disclosed.
     From the evidence and the report of the Senior Official Receiver, it would appear that the debtor had been connected with the theatrical profession for many years, and that he had been employed as manger of theatres in London and America. He stated that his income, derived from royalties and general literary work, averaged about £1,500 per annum, but during the last year or two it had fallen short of that amount. He ascribed his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connection with theatrical speculation; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to the non-production of the play Dick Sheridan in America, and adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting. The debtor had not kept any record of his financial transactions and the Official Receiver asserted that the deficiency of £15,672 shown in the amended accounts was only approximately and imperfectly accounted for, but was partly explained by losses, amounting to £5,000, at the Lyric and Royalty Theatres in 1890. The debtor stated that these losses were incurred in consequence of the unsuccessful production of the plays The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, of which he was the author and which he brought out personally. The Official Receiver alleged that on the failure of these plays the debtor became aware that he was insolvent. Further, that in March last the debtor, jointly with another person, produced another play, A Society Butterfly, a syndicate being formed for that purpose, but this also proved unsuccessful and he incurred a loss of £1,500 thereby. Amongst the proofs lodged was one for £450, balance of rent at the Opera Comique, at the rate of £250 per month, another for £134 in respect of hire of costumes, and another for £250 for advertising. The Official Receiver submitted that the debtor was not justified in embarking in the undertakings referred to as he was insolvent at the time and had been pressed by creditors. Reference was also made to the circumstance that in 1893 the debtor purchased a picture, “The World’s Desire,” from one Rudolph Blind, to whom he gave his acceptances for £460 in payment. These he was unable to pay at maturity, and he stated that the picture never came into his possession. Further, that his household and personal expenditure had considerably exceeded his income. The debtor also partly accounted for the existing deficiency by losses through betting transactions amounting to £1,200, which, he stated, extended over two or three years. The Official Receiver opposed the application on account of the absence of available assets, and on the ground that the debtor had brought on or contributed to his bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations and unjustifiable extravagance in living, and by gambling.
     Mr Registrar Giffard, in giving judgment, said it appeared that the debtor had been able to earn £1,500 a year in the past by his writings, and there was no reason why he should not do so in the future. He was a man of great ability and versatility, and his works were very popular, and it was only reasonable that some provision should be made for the creditors. The offences alleged by the Official Receiver had not been displaced, and the order of the Court would be that the debtor be discharged subject to his setting aside one-half of his income over and above £900 per annum, until the unsecured creditors had received dividends amounting to 7s. 6d. in the pound, the debtor to file accounts annually of his receipts.

_____

Following the bankruptcy, Buchanan continued to produce plays, novels and books of poetry, with varying degrees of success. In October 1900 he suffered the massive stroke which rendered him comatose for the last eight months of his life, and the following reports which appeared in the press after his death indicate that he had not managed to clear his debts.

The Times (22 June, 1901 - p.14)

THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS, 1883 and 1890.IN LONDON.

RECEIVING ORDERS.

Buchanan, Robert (deceased). Southside, Clapham-common, S.W., late Lewin-road, Streatham, S.W.

___

The Times (6 July, 1901 - p.17)

(Sittings in Bankruptcy, before MR. E. LEADAM HOUGH, Senior Official Receiver.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was the first meeting of creditors under a receiving order made on June 18 against Robert Buchanan, deceased, the well-known author and dramatist. The proceedings were founded on a petition presented by a creditor, who claimed £65 8s. 5d. in respect of moneys advanced.
     The CHAIRMAN said he was informed that the debtor possessed no assets, and it was probably within the knowledge of the creditors that he was adjudged bankrupt some years ago. In the course of those proceedings an order was made that he should set aside any income in excess of £900, but the order was unproductive.
     No resolution being passed, the matter remained in the hands of the Official Receiver.

___

The New York Times (13 July, 1901)

     Certain London papers which gave more or less sympathetic accounts of the funeral of the late Robert Buchanan, printed elsewhere in obscure places the following pathetic legend:
     At the London Bankruptcy Court yesterday a receiving order was made against the estate of the late Robert Buchanan.

_____

[A little more information about Rudolf Blind and The World’s Desire.]

_____

Robert Buchanan’s father was also declared bankrupt in 1860 and since there are similarities in the two cases (for example, Buchanan Snr. was criticised for spending money on champagne in the same way that his son was castigated for his gambling debts) I thought it might be useful to place the press reports of his case on the site:

The Bankruptcy of Robert Buchanan Snr.

_____

Although Buchanan himself did not appear in court for the next two cases, they can both be seen as the inevitable result of the dubious financial practices which resulted in his own bankruptcy.

“Dick Sheridan”

The Era (1 December, 1894 - Issue 2932)

“DICK SHERIDAN.”
_____

     In the Court of Queen’s Bench on Thursday, before Mr Justice Collins, the case of French v. Martyn came on for trial in the form of an interpleader issue to decide the question whether the sum of £162 18s. 5d. was the property of Mr Samuel French or of Mr W. E. Martyn. The amount had been paid into court by Mr Comyns Carr, of the Comedy Theatre.
     Mr French prior to December, 1892, advanced a considerable sum of money to Mr Robert Buchanan, who was the writer of a play known as Dick Sheridan. On Dec. 6th an agreement was executed between Mr Buchanan and the plaintiff, by which the latter was to receive the whole of the royalties derived from Dick Sheridan. One half of the amount was to go in liquidation of the plaintiff’s claim, and the balance was to be handed over to Mr Buchanan. In May, 1893, an agreement was entered into between Mr Comyns Carr and Mr Buchanan for the production of Dick Sheridan at the Comedy Theatre, and in the following July a further agreement was entered into between the defendant and Mr Buchanan, by which the latter, as beneficial owner, assigned to the former all his interest in the play in question. The total amount of royalties earned was £262. Mr Comyns Carr, before any royalties had been earned, paid the sum of £100, half of which went to the defendant, and the balance to Mr Buchanan. The plaintiff gave notice of his assignment on Sept. 25th, and the defendant gave notice of his on Nov. 4th. The plaintiff contended that as his notice was prior to that of the defendant he was entitled to the whole of the royalties due from Mr Comyns Carr. The defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the plaintiff’s notice did not affect more than half the amount, and that the defendant’s notice operated as to the balance.
     Mr Justice Collins said by the terms of his notice the plaintiff took possession of one-half of the fund on Sept. 25th, and, therefore, the notice on Nov. 4th by the defendant to the effect that the whole of the sum had been assigned to him was operative to put him into possession of the residue which remained unclaimed by the plaintiff. He accordingly held that each party was entitled to half of the amount which had been paid into court. Under the circumstances there would be no costs up to the settlement of the issue, but the defendant would have the costs of the hearing.

___

The Era (9 March, 1895 - Issue 2946)

“DICK SHERIDAN” IN COURT.
_____

     In the Court of Appeal, on the 1st inst., before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Lopes and Rigby, the case of S. French v. W. E. Martyn was heard. In this action, which was an appeal by Mr S. French, the dramatic publisher, of 89, Strand, W.C., from a judgment of Mr Justice Collins, without a jury, on an interpleader issue.
     Mr Dickens, Q.C., with whom was Mr Morton Smith, explained that it arose out of assignments by Mr Robert Buchanan, the dramatist and novelist, of his interest in the royalties and sales of his works, including the royalties in the comedy of Dick Sheridan, produced by Mr Comyns Carr at the Comedy Theatre. The royalties on Dick Sheridan, which Mr Buchanan had assigned to Mr French, amounted altogether to £260, and the appellant’s case was that Mr Buchanan had mortgaged his interest in the piece to him, on condition that he handed half the royalties received by him over to the author, and kept the other half himself until his claim was satisfied. Subsequently, before Dick Sheridan was completed, an advance of £50 was obtained by Mr Buchanan from Mr Comyns Carr, and afterwards the defendant in the present interpleader issue, Mr Martyn, also obtained a charge on the royalties, and by a deed signed on July 1st last year he was authorised by Mr Buchanan to collect the royalties on the play.
     The Master of the Rolls—Was Dick Sheridan produced? Mr Dickens—Yes, my lord.
     The Master of the Rolls—Did it succeed? Mr Dickens—Yes; and I think rightly. Mr Comyns Carr paid £50 to Mr Buchanan himself, and £50 to Mr Martyn in respect of royalties, and altogether they had received £180 out of the royalties, while Mr French had received only £80. The plaintiff claimed to receive the whole of the £260, and to keep half to himself, his mortgage deed being six months prior to the assignment to Mr Martyn. Mr Comyns Carr was now out of the case, and the Court would have to decide between rival claimants. He submitted the plaintiff was entitled to half of the whole fund.
     The Master of the Rolls—We have to deal with the case as Mr Buchanan ought to have done.
     Mr Buckmaster, for the respondent, contended that the assignment to Mr Martyn gave him all the rights that Mr Buchanan himself had in the play. The deed gave Mr Martyn the right to collect all the royalties, and at that time Mr Comyns Carr had no knowledge whatever of the deed to Mr French.
     The Master of the Rolls said the case was simple enough when not smothered by talk. Mr Buchanan was an author, and a very clever one, but like all authors he found himself without money, and he went to Mr French and borrowed money, giving him a mortgage of his right to royalties in a play. Mr French was to get half of the royalties to pay himself, and when they became due they amounted to £260. Mr Martyn claimed half of Mr French’s share, and the judge below allowed the claim. It was a mere business transaction under the common law. Mr French was therefore entitled to be paid £130, and the other half was to go to Mr Martyn. There would, therefore, be judgment entered for the plaintiff for £130, with costs there and in the court below.
     Lords Justices Lopes and Rigby concurred.

_____

Harriett Jay’s Bankruptcy

The Pall Mall Gazette (14 May, 1895 - Issue 9402)

IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO-DAY.

THE AFFAIRS OF MISS HARRIET JAY.

     The Official Receiver issued the usual summary in the case of Miss Harriet Jay, described as late of Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, authoress and actress. The debtor has stated that since the end of 1890 she has had practically no occupation or income except occasional earnings for literary work and gifts from friends. The liability is for £385 on an accommodation bill accepted by the debtor for the benefit of her brother-in-law, Robert Buchanan, lately bankrupt. There are no assets.

___

The New York Times (15 May, 1895)

An English Writer in Bankruptcy.

     LONDON, May 14.—Harriet Jay, the authoress and actress, sister-in-law of Robert Buchanan, the playwright and author, has been declared a bankrupt.

_____

     Robert Buchanan was declared in bankruptcy recently, to the intense indignation of Mr. Labouchère, who cannot understand how a pensioner of the Government may spend more than his income.

___

The Era (18 May, 1895 - Issue 2956)

     IN the Court of Bankruptcy on Tuesday, the case of Miss Harriett Jay was mentioned. The debtor, described as of Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, authoress and actress, has stated to the Official Receiver that since the end of 1890 she has had practically no occupation, or income, except occasional earnings from literary work and gifts from friends. She attributes her insolvency entirely to a liability of £385 on an accommodation bill accepted for the benefit of her brother-in-law, Robert Buchanan, lately a bankrupt. There are no assets. The debtor has been adjudged bankrupt.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (21 May, 1895 - Issue 9408)

THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF MISS HARRIET JAY.

     At the first meeting of creditors under the failure of Miss Harriet Jay, authoress and actress, described as late of Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, held yesterday, it appeared that there was only one creditor, the Union Deposit Bank, King William-street, Strand, their debt of £385 being in respect of a bill accepted by her on behalf of her brother-in-law, Mr. Robert Buchanan. Mr. W. A. Colyer appeared on behalf of the debtor, who stated that she had no assets, and could make no offer. The case was left in the hands of the Official Receiver to wind up in bankruptcy.

___

The Times (14 June, 1895 - p.14)

IN RE JAY.

     The debtor, Miss Harriett Jay, until recently residing at an address in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, attended for public examination.
     Mr. H. Brougham appeared as Official Receiver; and Mr. W. A. Colyer, solicitor, for the debtor.
     The debtor was examined by the OFFICIAL RECEIVER. and in the course of her evidence stated that she was an actress and authoress, but for several years she had not performed, and had practically no income. Her insolvency was attributable to a liability of £380 on a bill which she accepted about four years ago for the accommodation of her brother-in-law, Mr. Robert Buchanan. She never expected to be asked to meet the bill. Some furniture of which she was possessed had been sold by the landlord in respect of rent due from Mr. Buchanan.
     Replying to Mr. COLYER, the debtor stated that she became obliged to discontinue acting owing to an accident. She received no portion of the proceeds of the accommodation bill referred to.
     The examination was concluded.

___

The Era (15 June, 1895 - Issue 2960)

     AT the Bankruptcy Court, on Thursday, Miss Harriett Jay attended for her public examination, the bankrupt, an authoress and actress, applying to pass upon accounts showing debts £385 and assets nil. The debtor stated that she was an actress and authoress, and that her bankruptcy was solely attributable to her having accepted a bill for £200 on behalf of her brother-in-law (Mr Buchanan). At the time she accepted the bill she had furniture of her own and also a banking account. Part of the furniture was given her by her brother-in-law, and part she had purchased. All her furniture had been seized and sold by the landlord for rent owing by her brother-in-law. She had not protested against the furniture being sold, as she was told that the landlord could take anything. The furniture was not sold; it was given away. She had not been able to act for the last three or four years owing to an accident. She had only one creditor, viz., the petitioning creditor, in respect of whose bill she had not received one shilling of remuneration. The examination was concluded.

[Note:
On the same page of ‘Theatrical Gossip’ was an announcement of the cast list for The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown by Robert Buchanan and Charles Marlowe, which opened at the Vaudeville Theatre, on June 26th.]

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (25 July, 1895 - Issue 9464)

IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO-DAY.

THE AFFAIRS OF MISS HARRIET JAY.

     An application was made for an order of discharge on behalf of Miss Harriet Jay, actress and authoress. The only debt was for £385 and costs upon a promissory note accepted by plaintiff for the accommodation of Mr. Robert Buchanan, her brother-in-law. A discharge was granted, subject to judgment for £385 being entered against the bankrupt.

_____

I have not listed the following case in those related to Robert Buchanan since his connection to it is very peripheral, and in fact, it may not even be the ‘right’ Robert Buchanan at all. I do like to think that it is though, and that he was moved by the report in The Era (with dialogue which could have come from one of his plays) to help out a fellow ‘showman’. I also love the description of what passed for a show in Victorian England.

A Showman’s Courtship

The Times (5 January, 1891 - p.3)

     At WESTMINSTER, JAMES LEWIS, 25, a travelling showman and toymaker, was charged on a warrant before Mr. de Rutzen with an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act in respect of a girl, under 16 years of age, named Annie Treadwell, whose parents reside in Alfred-place, Flood-street, Chelsea. The girl gave her evidence with some reluctance. It was stated that the prosecution was instituted by her parents, and her father told the magistrate that during the period she was away from home he thought she was in service. In answer to Mr. de Rutzen the girl said that she was 15 years of age last October, and on the Monday before Christmas she made the acquaintance of the defendant, who assisted at a show in the King’s-road, Chelsea. She remained till the place closed. The prisoner asked her to remain, and she remained all night, and then several nights with him, and when the show broke up she went with him to a place off New-street, Borough-road, and remained in the caravan. In answer to the prisoner she admitted that on the night they met she informed him that her mother had told her she had better “take her hook.” She had also told the prisoner that she was 17 last October, and every day he urged her to go home. In answer to the magistrate she said that she was afraid is she told prisoner the truth about her age he would not let her remain. Further questioned by the prisoner, she admitted telling him that she was three weeks away from home once before, also that her parents beat her. Prisoner.—The fact is the girl and I truly love each other. We were making arrangements to settle in life, and things were all being made right. Mr. de Rutzen, recalling the complainant, asked her whether the prisoner spoke to her on the subject of getting married. Witness.—Yes, Sir. She further said that the first night she remained in the prisoner’s place no impropriety took place. Afterwards their relations were of a different nature. Evidence was then given as to the arrest of the prisoner on a warrant applied for by the parents. Accused expressed his willingness to be sworn, and proceeding from the dock to the witness-box repeated in effect the statement he had already made on arrest, that the girl had told him she was over 17. He added that he courted the girl with the intention of marrying her, and said that, believing she was over 17, he did not insist on her going home when she pleaded to stop with him. Mr. James Robert Haines, surgeon, gave evidence which was consistent entirely with the defendant’s own admission and the girl’s statement. Mr. de Rutzen told the defendant he must commit him for trial to the Central Criminal Court, but he would take one bail in £10 for his appearance. Defendant went away to prison as no one came to bail him.

___

The Era (10 January, 1891 - Issue 2729)

A SHOWMAN’S COURTSHIP.
_____

     James Lewis, aged twenty-five, a travelling showman and toy maker, was charged on a warrant before Mr De Rutzen at Westminster Police-court, on Saturday, with an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act in respect of a girl under sixteen years of age, named Annie Treadwell, whose parents reside in Alfred-place, Flood-street, Chelsea. The prisoner, a tall young fellow of fine physique and good countenance, was poorly dressed. The girl, short of stature, very dark-eyed and complexioned, almost like a gipsy, gave her evidence with some reluctance, and with her head averted from the dock, except when the accused cross-examined her, and requested her to look at him as she answered his questions. It was stated that the prosecution was instituted by her parents, and her father told the magistrate that during the period she was away from home he thought she was in service.
     In answer to Mr De Rutzen, the girl said she was fifteen years of age last October, and on the Monday before Christmas she made the acquaintance of the defendant, who assisted at a show which had been fitted up at what was formerly a greengrocer’s shop, in the King’s-road, Chelsea. There was “a fat lady” on exhibition, followed by “two dark men,” and at her visit to see the latter on Monday night she remained till the place closed.
    Mr De Rutzen—Did the prisoner ask you to? Witness—Yes; and I remained all night. I stayed several nights with him, and when the show broke up I went with him to a place off New-street, Borough-road, and remained in the caravan.
     Prisoner—Annie, dear. Do you remember telling me the first night we met that your mother had said that you had better “take your hook?” Witness (in a low tone)—Yes.
     Did I ask your age?—Yes, and I told you I was seventeen last October.
     Each day we were together did I not press you to go home—although I liked you? Witness—Yes.
     And did you not say, “No, Jem. I can’t leave you?” Witness—Yes.
     Mr De Rutzen asked the girl what made her tell the defendant an untruth as to her age. For a long time no answer could be obtained, but at length she said that she was afraid if she told him the truth he would not let her remain.
     Further questioned by the prisoner she admitted telling him that she was three weeks away from home once before. Also that her parents beat her.
     Prisoner—The fact is the girl and I truly love each other. We were making arrangements to settle in life, and things were all being made right.
     Mr De Rutzen, recalling the complainant, asked her whether the prisoner spoke to her on the subject of getting married. Witness—Yes, sir. She further said that the first night she remained in the prisoner’s place no impropriety took place. Afterwards their relations were of a different nature.
     Constable Langler, 64 B reserve, deposed that the girl’s parents reported her missing at the Chelsea Police-station on the night of the 29th ult. She had been away since Monday, the 21st of the month, but they thought she was in a situation. Witness made inquiries and learnt that the girl had been nightly at the show, and had gone off with one of the showmen. He traced the couple to a yard in New-street, Borough-road, where they were staying together in a caravan. The result of making inquiries was that the girl was sent home.
     Mr De Rutzen—And her parents applied for a warrant?
     Witness—Yes, and I executed it at half-past one this (Saturday) morning. I found the prisoner alone in the caravan asleep. When I told him the girl was under sixteen, he said, “She told me she was over seventeen. I did not expect this, and if things had not turned out as they have we should soon have been married, and I should have made a woman of her. I first met her in the King’s-road, Chelsea, and I took a fancy to her. I love her and she took a fancy to me. I heard you were about the night before last, so I made her go home, although she said she would not, as her father and mother knocked her about.”
     Mr De Rutzen told the prisoner that under the Act of Parliament he had the right of giving evidence on oath.
     Accused immediately expressed his willingness to be sworn, and, proceeding from the dock to the witness-box, repeated in effect the statement he had already made to the police-officer. He added that he courted the girl with the intention of marrying her, and said that, believing she was over seventeen, he did not insist on her going home when she pleaded to stop with him.
     Mr James Robert Haines, surgeon, gave evidence which was consistent entirely with the defendant’s own admission and the girl’s statement.
     Mr De Rutzen told the defendant he must commit him for trial to the Central Criminal Court, but he would take one bail in £10 for his appearance. Defendant went away to prison, as no one came to bail him.

___

Reynolds’s Newspaper (18 January, 1891 - Issue 2110)

     THE SHOWMAN’S COURTSHIP.—James Lewis, 26, on bail, surrendered to answer a charge of criminally assaulting Annie Treadwell, a girl under the age of sixteen. The prisoner is by profession a showman, and among the visitors to his exhibition at Chelsea, which consisted of a fat lady and two dark men, was the prosecutrix. One night, when the show was closing the girl came in again, stated that her mother had turned her out of doors, and asked for shelter. This was given her, and no impropriety appears to have occurred until the following night, after the prosecutor had vainly urged the girl to return home, and had received her assurance that she was seventeen years of age. The prosecutrix, who now admitted that her statements were incorrect, afterwards went home with the prisoner. On being apprehended the accused said that if he had not been interfered with he would have married the girl, and he now went into the box and declared that he was as ready as ever to lead her to the altar. Mr. Martyn, instructed by Mr. Robert Buchanan, who had bailed the prisoner upon reading the police-court proceedings, urged that an acquittal would in these circumstances be the best possible thing for all parties; and the jury, acquiescing in the suggestion, found Lewis “Not guilty.”

_____

And finally, this book review from Guardian keeping the image of the litigious Buchanan alive into the 1930s.

The Guardian (19 May, 1930 - p.5)

     Mr. Edward F. Spence, K.C., was born at Liverpool in 1860, and after working hard at the Bar and as a dramatic critic for many years he has retired from these more strenuous activities and now finds time to give us some of his experiences in BAR AND BUSKIN (Mathews and Marrot, pp. xxii. 400, 15s. net). His father was one of the nineteen children of a Liverpool merchant who could recite “Paradise Lost,” but the present Mr. Spence tells us that he and his wife never desired to have a child. Another curiously frank confession is that he once intended to bolt with £30,000 which did not belong to him but changed his mind. Yet this volume reveals him as almost remarkably normal, and he went through many mental experiences that are so common as to be uninteresting. He appears to be a simple-minded man and writes without literary charm and without pretension. He became prosperous, earning from three to five thousand a year at the Bar, and one case which spread over several years brought him about eight thousand pounds. There are curious particulars about the dishonesty of some solicitors in their dealings with barristers, some interesting technical criticisms of methods of litigation, and a contention, with which, perhaps, a good many laymen will agree, that the House of Lords is not a great success as a final Court of Appeal. Mr. Spence is a man of independent judgment, and it is to his honour that he was one of the earliest favourable critics of Ibsen’s plays. He was too outspoken for some of the authors and managers, but he assures us that only three writs were issued “in respect of his severe notices”; all, it seems, by Robert Buchanan. On the whole his book is a modest and friendly one, but it seems a pity that from his snug retreat in the country he should have to warn us that we are going to the dogs.

__________

Back to Miscellanea