THEATRICAL CIVIL CASE.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1754, 3 October 1879, Page 2

THEATRICAL CIVIL CASE.

The adjourned civil ease of P. H. Kirby against Davie and Frost, proprietors of the Victoria Loftns Troupe, for the recovery of £IOO for services rendered as an agent, was heard this morning in the Resident Magistrate’s Court.

Mr Joyce appeared for the complainant and Mr Joynt for the defendants. From the complainant’s statement it appeared that he entered the service of the defendants in the capacity of agent in San Francisco on the Gth of last May, at a salary of £lO a week. The company left California on June 9th, at which date the payment of plaintiff’s salary commenced. On the 21st of the present month, while in Christchurch, plaintiff wrote ashing Davis and Frost for a settlement of his account, which he bad allowed to run on until it amounted to £l6O 10s. Instead of settling with him, the defendants brought the plaintiff in in their debt to the tune of £6O 2s, and repudiated any liability to him. The following Saturday the defendant Davis threatened to punch the complainant’s head and generally break his bones. Hereupon the plaintiff took out a summons for £IOO, abandoning the balance of £69 7*6d to enable the case to come within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. For the defence it was contended that from the date of the arrival of the company in New Zealand the plaintiff became the servant of Mr R. J. DeLias, for whom he had engaged the troupe in California. The plaintiff, in cross-examination, explained the nature of his duties, which were to 11 look after the front of the house,” engage lodgings for the company generally, and advertise and put the entertainment properly before the public. The expense of advertising, rent of theatres, and the expenses of working the “show” fell on Messrs Frost and Davis and Mr R. J, DeLias, On the Gth of last July the plaintiff filed his declaration of insolvency in Auckland, his liabilities being £62 10a, assets nil; but he had not as yet got his order of discharge. Mr Joynt applied at this stage of the case for a nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff was an uncertificated bankrupt. [Quoted 55th, 56th, and SBth sections of the Bankruptcy Act.] Mr Joyce said that he was taken by surprise, as the fact of the insolvency was not known to him. Of course all prior to the date of the bankruptcy must come to the plaintiff, though he would have to abandon all after that date. He was prepared to quote cases showing that salary was payable even though the bankruptcy had taken place. Mr Joynt contended that the bankruptcy entirely did away with the contract, and the plaintiff could not come into that Court and sue except through his trustee. Hence be applied for a nonsuit. Mr Joyce submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to something. He was, under the Act, entitled to recover for work and labor done, though not having obtained a certificate. If this was not so, then a bankrupt might just as well lay down and die. He submitted confidently that plaintiff was entitled to something, and it was for the Court to determine what it was. He had been taken by surprise in this matter, and would ask for an adjournment to enable him to look up the law. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-naorrow morning.