THE ENGLISH OPERA COMPANY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5713, 22 July 1879, Page 2

THE ENGLISH OPERA COMPANY.

INTERNAL DISSENSIONS AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES,

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning a number of oases were down for hearing, in which actions were brought by members of the English Opera Company against Mr. Simmonds, manager of the troupe. The claims were principally for arrears of salary due. Considerable interest was manifested in the cases by the public, the Atliencßum large hall being filled. Mr. Mansford was on the bench, and Mr. Acton Adams (M.H.R. for Nelson) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Ollivier for Messrs. Mitchell and Simmonds, the proprietors of the Opera Company. Mr. Adams said the first case on the list was Pownall t. Simmonds, but as the plaintiff in i his case resided at Nelson, and they had only documentary evidence, it would be advisable to proceed with the other cases; and he would therefore ask that the case of Mr. Hughes against Mr. Simmonds should be called. Mr. Pownall was a pianist at Nelson, and had played a week for the company while in that town. Mr. Simmonds had left without paying him. Mr. Pownall had obtained a judgment for the amount in defendant’s absence, but on the writ being sent on here it had been returned marked nulla bona. Mr. Hughes, the conductor of the orchestra, had reason to believe that Mr Simmonds was about to leave the colony without paying him (Hughes) some salary due, and he had therefore had him arrested, and was present to support the charge. The Magistrate said he would hear what Mr. Simmonds had to answer to the charge that he was about to abscond.

Mr. Simmonds deposed that at 12 o’clock that day there was a week's salary (£7) due to Mr. Hughes, and there was one day’s salary due from the previous week. He had not the least intention to leave the colony. He had business engagements here which would prevent him leaving. He had nearly £3OO due to him, while in conjunction with Mr. Mitchell he did not owe £SO.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adams : There was also £2 10s. due to Mr. Hughes on a previous account several weeks since. • He had not made any arrangements for leaving Wellington. He had made no settlement with Mr. Mitchell, but they were about to separate. He was not indebted to Mr. Pownall at Nelson. That gentleman had sat in the orchestra at Nelson, and had offered to do it for nothing, as it would increase his reputation were it known that he had played with the Opera Company, but he (witness) had given him a number of dress-circle tickets by way of compensation. He had large sums of money due to him in other towns, but nothing in Wellington. Mr. Hughes deposed that there was no regular pay-day in the company. He was owed a week’s salary, £7, and £3 13s. 4d. outstanding. They were paid at any time. He had heard on Saturday that Mr. Simmonds was about to leave. The company had received notice that they were to disband on Saturday. He had heard that Mr. Simmonds had paid his board up to that day (Monday). He knew that a writ against Mr. Simmonds had been returned nulla bona , while Mr. Simmonds had diamond rings and other property. He had no knowledge of the nature of Mr. Pownall’s engagement. His engagement in Auckland with Mr- Mitchell was to conduct and play first violin for £7 per week. He had written band parts, but was not bound to do so by his agreement. It was the custom for the leader to write parts that might be wanted. He had, in reply to Mr. Simmonds, said they could produce the “ Bohemian Girl,” but “Martha” would be done very indifferently. It was a physical impossibility to write all the parts that were wanted. Mr. Adams thought sufficient had been shown to warrant the Magistrate in holding Mr. Simmonds over to bail, Mr. Mansford said Mr. Simmonda must

enter into bail if be wished to be released; but he might, under the Act, elect to have the cases heard at once. Mr. Simmonds decided to have the charges heard then. The case of Mr. Hughes against Messrs. Mitchell and Simmonds was then proceeded with, and the evidence previously given formally repeated. Mr. Hughes deposed on one occasion he had applied for a small advance of salary. The witness related the particulars of some small complicated accounts between himself and bis employers. He denied having caused loss and inconvenience to the company through failing to write parts. He had not heard that a “ treasury” was called for that morning at 11. He had first suspected that Mr. Simmonds was about to leave when the writ from Nelson had been returned nulla hona. He then took steps to hare Mr. Simmonds detained. Mr. Simmonds deposed that Mr. Hughes had been engaged as conductor with the understanding that he was to write the necessary parts for the instruments. He had failed to carry out that understanding. The representation of “Martha” had failed through the neglect of Mr. Hughes to write the parts. That damaged the reputation of the company. Mr. Hughes had been paid his salary regularly, and sometimes paid in advance. His partner, Mr. Mitchell, had found fault with him for making advances. He had on one occasion at Picton played to a house of .£1 55., while his expenses were about £3O.

Mr. Mitchell deposed he had engaged Mr. Hughes to conduct in towns where a large orchestra would be required ; iu small towns he was to lead and play the first violin. The representation of “ Martha” here had been a disgraceful failure, through the neglect of Mr. Hughes. The clarionet player had left the orchestra on that occasion, while the second violin player had been obliged to go “vamping” through his music. Wellington was to be the starting point of the company before going South. He had told Mr. Hughes at the public table at Barrett’s that the playing of the band in “ Martha” was a fiasco-; the failure of a band was the fault of the conductor. They had brought out “Martha" badly in other places, but that was iu small towns where it did not matter how it was done. They looked on Wellington as the Metropolis. The first and second violins could not play off one score. They could only make exhibitions of themselves. Had Balfe, the author of the “Bohemian Girl,” been present at its representation last week, he would not have known hia own work ; that was the fault of Mr. Hughes. Mr. Cary deposed he was business manager for the company, and that he had heard Mr. Hughes tell Mr. Simmonds they could produce “ Martha” and the “ Bohemian Girl” as far as the band were concerned. Those pieces were failures, and he (witness) was a loser thereby. The instrumentalists had to scrape and vamp through their music as best they could, and the clarionet had left the orchestra. The musicians were in fact all the while at loggerheads. If he had known the playing of certain pieces had been failures in other towns he would not have allowed them to be played here. They had not had fairly good houses after the failures—they had fairly bad houses. Mr. LeCouteur was called by Mr. Ollivier to depose as to the custom of conductors supplying parts, but the Magistrate said his evidence would be unnecessary in that connection. Francis Maxted, pianist of the Opera Company, deposed he was present at Hackett’a Hotel in Auckland when Mr. Mitchell engaged Mr. Hughes. There was nothing said then about writing band parts. He knew nothing of the custom in such cases. At the time of the interview in Auckland he was stipulating for more salary for himself. No reference whatever was made to duties on that occasion. Mr. Ollivier said that concluded the case on both sides. Mr. Mansford gave judgment for plaintiff with costs. The case LeCouteur v. Mitchell and Simmonds was then called. Mr. Adams said this case was for services rendered by the plaintiff’s wife. He would call the husband to depose to the facts. Mr. Wilson LeCouteur said his wife was engaged at £l2 per week by the defendants. There was a balance of £2 due and the last week’s salary. Her engagement was a weekly one. By Air. Ollivier: Mr. Hughes bad taken action to detain Mr, Simmonds without his (witness’s) knowledge. The first he knew of it was when Air. Simmonds was in gaol. He claimed for the last week in full, though Airs. LeCouteur had been unable to play for the last three nights through being ill. He did not know if the defendants would contest their liability for that. The excitement of the failure of the representation on Wednesday had brought on the premature confinement of his wife.

Mr. Adams considered there was. a good claim for the whole week, as Mrs. LeCouteur had been prevented from appearing through no fault of her own. He quoted cases.

Mr. Ollivier said he could not see that a claim had been established for the full week. It was true that the lady had been absent through no fault of her own. She had been confined—that was no fault of her own. The services had not been rendered, and therefore no pry• ment was duo. He also quoted cases. Mr. LeCouteur said they did not press for the three nights in dispute ; they would be glad to get the rest. He left the three nights to the defendants’ honor.

Mr. Ollivier said they would accept judgment for the half week and the balance outstanding. Judgment was given accordingly. There were a number of other cases against Mr. Simmonds, but Mr. Mansford said ho would postpone them till next morning at 10 o’clock, and probably they would be settled amicably in the interval; such a result was very desirable.

There was then some discussion as to Mr, Simmonds being released on bail. Mr. Ollivier said as no proof had been given that Mr. Simmonds was about to leave the colony he might be released. Mr. Mansford said he had not accepted all the defendant had said. Debtors were not in the habit of going round to tell their creditors when about to abscond. Defendant could, however, bail himself by paying up the judgments and costs.