THE "GREAT WAGNER CASE." [From the Times," May 11.]

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 676, 6 October 1852, Page 4

THE "GREAT WAGNER CASE." [From the Times," May 11.]

The decision of the Vice- Chan cell or in the case of " Lumley v. Wagner" will have more interest for a certain class of our readers than many more important discussions with which oiir columns are daily filled. The prominent situation which Operatic performers fill in the public eye gives a kind of spurious importance to their squabbles and litigation. There are certainly a good many men in the west end of London who Mould be sadly puzzled to write down a correct list of the junior Lords of the Admiralty or Treasury. There are few, comparatively speaking, avlio are not familiar with the names even of the second-rate singers at the rival Opera houses. So ' great was the interest displayed by the public in the course of the present dispute that during the three days the trial proceeded the court was crammed with spectators, and when the Vice-Chan-cellor delivered his judgment yesterday it was impossible to get even "squeezing" room. Independently of the interest which naturally attaches to an Operatic squabble, some little indignation had been excited by an expression which was found in one of Mr. Wagner's letters. This worthy, as it would appear, only considers the English in the light of geese who lay golden eggs j for the benefit of Wagners and such like folk. Before he has done with us Mr. Wagner may discover that he has scarcely formed a just idea of ] English powers of appreciation. For some persons we have money and admiration ; for others money and contempt. \ The whole story may be condensed into a few paragraphs if it be regarded as a mere narrative of facts, and not as a theme for the ingenuity of counsel. The decision has gone as a matter of course, in Mr. Lumley's favour. That it could j not do otherwise will at once appear from the fol- | lowing brief recapitulation of the facts :—ln: — In the autumn of last year Dr. Bacher, a friend of the family, was occupied in procuring engagements for Mdle. Wagner in London and Paris. He naturally came into contact with Mr. Lumley and received from that gentlemen a formal paper containing his usual stipulations upon engaging the services of a performer. This paper contained a prohibitory clause which forbade the appearance of Mdle Wagner at any private concerts, &c, while her engagement with Mr. Lumley should subsist. When the document was shoAvn to the ] Wagners, they objected to this clause, and drew up another paper similar — we believe — to it in other respects, save that this prohibitory clause was omitted. To this paper the Wagners affixed their signatures, and it was conveyed by Bache to Mr. Lumley. In such a shape the manager would have nothing to do with it, and insisted upon the restoration of the veto. To this Bacher assented — added the clause — and signed it as agent to the Wagners. So far as it turns upon this point the question throughout is a simple one of agency. Had Dr. Bacher the right to sign as agent for the Wagners ; or did the Wagners, by any subsequent conduct or act of their own, adopt an agreement which might not in the first instance have been binding upon them for defect of authority ? It will be quite unnecessary to dwell upon the first point, because it appears that the Wagners did subsequently acknowledge the act of their agent, and make it their own, in a very complete manner. In the first place, Dr. Bacher tells us that when he had added the clause he forwarded the paper to Mdle. Wagner, and it was by her acknowledged in a letter bearing date one day of November last. Then we find all parties engaged in a correspondence on the subject — Mr. Lumley — M. Albert Wagner, the father, — Mdle. Joanna — Mr. Lumley — Dr. Bacher, and all of them assuming that there was a contract subsisting between the manager and the singer. " Now," as the Vice- Chancellor shrewdly enough remarked, "there had been no contract signed without this clause, therefore this is the contract concerning which the parties Avere in correspondence." What the Wagners say is, that when the paper was sent back to them they objected to the clause, and only received the document upon Dr. Baches assurance that when they arrived in London the little matter should be set right. Now we cannot forget that they must have been perfectly aware that they would not be permitted to pass slipshod over this clause of the contract. Mr. Lumley insisted upon it with so much earnestness that he refused to aflix his signature to the agreement until the clause, which he had originally introduced, but which had been struck out by the Wagners, had been replaced. Was it probable he would suffer himself to be duped out of so capital a proviso by Dr. Bacher's little diplomacy, when lie had in the first instance refused to complete the contract without it l . Is it possible that M. and Mule. Wagner could even for a moment have entertained so preposterous an idea i Such, however, is the only reason assigned

by the Wagners against the validity of the contract—namely, a vague hope on their own part that, when they arrived in London, Mr. Lumley would be induced to give up the advantages for which he had negotiated with so much earnestness. As many of our readers as have patience to wade through the evidence will find that another point was raked in favour of the Wagners. It was on their side alleged that money was not paid by Mr. ; Lumley on a particular d;n r when it should have been paid. It is replied, in the fir&t place that Dr. Bather had money of Mr. Lumloy's in his hands, and that, even had it been otherwise, all deficiencies in this respect were excused by the conduct of the Wagners on and after the sth of March, and by a subsequent tender of the money on the 15th of April. It was on the sth of March that the Wagners, who had so bound themselves to Mr. Luml'ey, were found at Hamburgh quietly entering- into a fresh contract with Mr. Gye, from which they hoped to derive larger pecuniary advantages. More than this, on the JOth of March, Dr. Bacher wrote to Mdle. Wagner, asking where he should pay the money he had ready for lie) 1 , and received from her father the following reply : — " If you send the bill to Berlin be good enough to address it either at this time to Berlin, or from (dcs) the 2nd of April to Hamburg, to Engel and to Ferdinand Hirst, 1 where we shall remain some time longer with our daughter." However this may be, it is quite clear that on Mr. Lumley's part there was no disinclination or inability to pay the money when needed. The paltry subterfuge was furbished up at last moment to serve the turn of those who would not keep and could scarcely evade the terms of an agreement into which they had entered of their own free will. The simple truth of this long tiial is that Mdle. Joanna Wagner and her excellent paient thought that the second bargain was better than the first, and therefore endeavoured to repudiate tlr r own act. It is a shabby business, and the sooner, for Mdle. Wagner's sake it is forgotten, the better. At the same time, it is clear enough that the fault lies, not with the young girl, but with the sordid circle around her, who were endeavouring to huckster her talents about the most profitable market without regard to any consideration but those of £ s, d.

The Vice-Chancellor's decision in this case was appealed from, and the subject was argued for two days before the Lord-Chancellor. On the 2Gth of May his Lordship gave judgment, vigorously upholding the decision of Vice-Chancellor Parker. "He must tell Madlle. Wagner that she was mistaken if she thought she could, for such reasons, escape from her contract ; for the Court declared that she was not released from any of the obligations of it, and that the notarial protest was of no effect whatever. She had no reason to complain of the manner in which she had been treated ; and it would be folly on her part now to attempt to escape from the performance of her agreement ; and, as her objections on the point of law had failed, he must dismiss the appeal with costs."