ADA REEVE AT LAW.

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 89, 8 January 1918, Page 11

ADA REEVE AT LAW.

BUSINESS DIFFERENCE WITH HER HUSBAND DEBATED PARTNERSHIP An umi.sunt case which occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Harvey in the Equity Court for some days of the past fortnight was the suit brought by Mrs. Adelaide Mary Cotton (Miss Ada Reeve, the popular comedienne antl' vaudeville artiste) now appearing at tho Tivoli Theatre) against her husband,. Mr. Wilfrid Cotton. The lady (says the "Sunday Times") sought a declaration that her husband had no interest in her theatrical business, nor in the profits of her tours—either as man. sger or otherwise, and asked that he might be restrained by injunction from interfering except with her permission. The defence was that Mr. Cotton was the managing partner in his wife's different businesses, sharing equally the not profits. He said there had been a recent statement of accounts between them, which had been accepted as satisfactory by her. He counter-claimed that tho partnership, so far as it related to the theatrical portion of 1-er business, was to continue till the termination of all her existing contracts, and alleged that he had been wrongfully restrained from carrying out his duties as managing partner. He asked for a declaration that they were partners in the theatrical and other businesses of- his wife, and that some fit afid proper person be appointed, either jointly or separately, to collect lite moneys due on account of the partnership, and to distribute debts;

Matrimony and Business. The opportunity of seeing a favourite of theatre patrons at close range, and under the fire of cross-examination in the witness-box, was largely availed of, and the accommodation of the chamber was taxed on all the days of the hearing. In the summary of the evidence, herewith, the stories of the parties to the action are told in their own words, and readers will observe that Miss Reeve was generous in her appreciation of the abilities of her husband, whofi.in turn, was highly'appreciative of the qualities of his charming and _ accomplished wife. The matrimonial partnership appeared : to have been more happy than were''the business relations of the pair—though it was stated by Miss Reeve, in her evidence, that a lady passenger on the boat with them had told her that lie was "easy," and that he had on an occasion gone so far as to wink at that lady. Mr. Cotton took an opportunity in course of examination to deny all allegations of the kind.

lu her evidence in chief Mrs. Cotton was in the box for six hours. In the course of the examination Mr. R-. H. Long Innes, K.C. (for Mr. Cbtton), approached Jier with courtly delicacy as to her age: I do not want to discloso it, but would you mind writing it down The fair plaintiff did so, and as sho passed- the scrap of paper across to counsel sho said: "Show it to my husband and see if he'll disputo it." Later Miss Reeve informed the Court that she was the younger of the two— that her husband was older, and not younger than she. It had been suggested that sho was the senior partner. In reply to a question plaintiff stated that after a consideration of affairs by the family lawyer each of them bought a ring, but 6lie did not admit that this was any evidence of a reconciliation. When Mr. Innes showed her a ring and asked her-to examine it, Mrs. Cotton—who has been the cause of laughter to thousands in Australia alone—broko down and burst into tears.

Plaintiff's Evidence, Tho main evidence was given by tho plaintiff, Mrs. _ Cotton (Miss Ada Reeve). She said she objected to her husband being away from hor so' much, but sho did not suggest that he should join in business with her, or manage lier affairs. She did not ask him to abandon all bis own business -to do that. Before her marriage she was getting £150 per week. Her husband was interested in several theatrical companies; he had not written songs for her, but, at her suggestion, had altered songs to suit her. Tho same remark applied to plays, ,but it was all done under her direction. Sho did not think ho had discussed with her the question of giving up. his . own business to manage her affairs. He - know tho theatrical business thoroughly, and was of considerable sorvice in the alteration of songs and sketches. Mr. Cotton was entirely dependent on her affection and gratitude: he had only to ask hor for anything fie wanted.

Soino years ago, said Miss Reove, she handed Mr. Cotton her diamonds to pledge in connection with a business transaction, but did not ask , him then to assign her the rights in certain of his Irish plays as security. The diamonds were afterwards redeomed, and she. had them now. She believed that before she went on her second South African tour' Mr. Cotton uad gone bankrupt. That, however, had not. made any difference to her. All ho had ever done for her he had been well paid for. There were certain differences between them in Australia, and they were not so friendly, afterward,s. In 1914, when they returned., to England, she had made accusations against her husband in a matrimonial sense, becauso of serious matters which had come to her knowledge. The accusations were investigated by solicitors, and the report was, what everybody might have expected, from family solicitors, "Everybody innocent." They'' were then still living together. In answer to Mr. Innes, Miss Reeve admitted' that each of them bought 'a ring, but she would not admit that it was a token of reconciliation.

Tlie Dressing of a Star. In answer to further questions, Miss Heave said that when sho came to Australia she was absolutely in debt, but sho was not. extravagant. Sho paid big prices l'or lier dresses, but a woman wuo was entertaining the public should do that. If she sold her jewollery 10-day . she estimated she would get £2500 for it. Sho was also interested in certain, endowment policies; Her husband had not remonstrated with lier oil her oxtravaganco in dress. Jlr. limes: Did lie not object to your extravagance and you replied: "I will do what I like with my own money ?" —I probably did say that. Mr. limes: And then did not "Air. Cotton say; "Do as you pleaso .with the money, but not as long as wo aro partners in business ?"—That was never said. Miss lleeve said that she believed shortly after their marriage there .was something said about her having £20 a week for dress, but she told lier husband that the money was hers. lie had neve:' vetoed any of her touring arrangements. Sho had always insisted on being called Mrs. Cotton, in the theatres, because she did not wish, in any way, to humiliate her husband. Mr. Junes: Do you regard your bus-' band as an adventurer? -Most certainly not. I was introduced to him by a mutual friend in London, and at once thought he was a. good man. I was struck by his charming manner, and that is why 1 married him quickly. I Did you know that ho was a rising I man in his business? —No.. Did not Mr. Cotton at one time suggest' thai vmi should leave the stajjo?. Miss liwve: And pray, what would he have then lived on? I She said that her husband had ad-

I mittcd to their legal adviser, in London, that the only money he had was that which ho rewired from her. Husband's Evidence. Defendant, in his evidence, said that prior to his marriage with Miss lleero ho had been connected with Mr. Forbes Robertson and other well-known English theatrical people. Ho had written plays, lyrics, and sketches. He and his wife had agreed to join forces in the theafcrioal business, and. he claimed to be a partner in the business and entitled to a certain share of the profits. His duties under tho agreement were tho making of contracts, the engaging of artists, and tho writing and altering of plays. It was agreed that he «nd his wifo should have equal shares in the partnership, but thero was not anything that his wife was also to be credited with her salary. Mr. Justice Harvey: Do you say that you agreed, absolutely, with your wifo to join business forces? —"Yes. Her duties were to be confined to those of an actress and a singer." Mr. Cotton said that he was tho responsible person, and initiator of all his wife's business matters and arrangements. Ho had made musical plays of certain novels, and they had been produced in London. His wife was never charged any commission for theso services. After he was .made bankrupt in South Africa it was agreed that the business should bo carried on in his wife's name, but in all other respects, exactly as before. Defendant added that before they went to South Africa his wife's diamonds were pledged; he thought the

amount was £850. They were redeemed after his return to England, tho money for that purposo being taken from the surplus in hand, partly from tho South African tour. After his wife's illness in 1914-15 she became extraordinarily jealous, and made accusations against him, which were false. Mr. Cotton said that, with two exceptions, there was never any mention of his receiving a salary. Once, on tho Melbourne railway station, his wife's private secretary handed him a cheque for £25. The letter said: "Enclosed please find £25—your salary.—ADA." He spoke to his wife about it, saying there was no question of salary, and asking why she had done this? She replied, "Is that all?" and tore up the letter, handing him the cheque. Ho said: "If we understand that tho letter is cancelled I'll take tho cheque, as I need the money."

He had had conversations with his wife about her extravagance in dress, and on one occasion it was agreed that she should have £20 a week to cover her expeuses for this. Later on, however, in another conversation, his. wifo said: "I earn the money, and I'll do what I like with it." On one occasion his wife and he discussed the question which should abandon an individual career. "But," he added, "we always eventually came to an agreement; we never had a serious disagreement."

He denied til at he had said to Cohen, the family solicitor, "If she leaves me I have not a farthing in the world except .what she gives me."

£359 Per Week. In reply to Mr. Knox, defendant said that, during one of the South African tours, Miss Reeve received an average salary of £310 per week. His wife had a banking acoount when he married her, and it was agreed, at the time, that her salary should go into her own account.- In some of the pantomimes at Home his wife received £250 a week. During her Australian season, in 1914, she received : £350 a week, subject to certain commissions. The "contract was for 20 consecutive weeks. He claimed that the life policies, including those of his wife, were .part of the joint concern. ■■*-. " Mr. Knox; Was your earning capacity, at the time of your marriage, equal to your wife's? Mr. Cotton: It was. My wifo «as then averaging £115 per .week, aad I think she was worknig about six months of the year. - He did not claim a share of her ! jewellery or hor furniture. Miss Reeve was recalled, and said it was not a fact that her husband had pressed her to go into tho accounts. She always took his word about them. In answer to Mr. Knox, Miss Reeve said: "I do not deny that my husband took a considerable part in the business, but lie evidently thinks lie did more than he did, whilst I think he did less than he thinks he did." (Laughter.) She had not discussed with Mr. Cotton the selling of. certain, shares to adjust his bankruptcy. She' donied that in the course of an interview at Mr. Barry Cohen's office in Loudon she said Bhe would undertake to pay off her husband's debts in connection with his bankruptcy. She had ■'never"told Mr, Jarry, the actor, that she and Mr: Cotton had gone into business partnership. ' ' . Referring- to the rehearsing of an understudy for Mr. Jarry and Mr. Cotton's attitude in connection with it, Mrs. Cotton said: "I did not think I was compelled to give my manager reasons."

Mr. Innes: Although that manager was your husband?—" Yes." You did not think you were compelled to give your husband reasons?— "Not in the circumstances."

In giving judgment His Honour said that the conclusion left by the evidence as a whole waß that there was no partnership between tho parties. It was 1 due to Mr. Cotton (said His Honour) that he should say that the plaintiff and defendant both impressed him as good witnesses, in the sense that neither deliberately testified to what he or alio bolieved <vas untrue, and each desired to be fair to the other. Neither of them had a monopoly of the truth. After weighing all the evidence, His Honour felt no doubt that the real position was that tho business carried on under the name of Ada lloevc ivas, and is, Mrs. Cotton's business; that Mr. Cotton helped her loyally, and to tho best of his ability, in carrying on the business, and in relieving her from all unnecessary worry, because ho was her husband, and not because lie had a half, or any proprietary, interest in the business. The result was _ that Mrs. Cotton could, at her own volition, if she chose, sever all business relations with her husband, and withdraw tho whole management into her own hands. She could, if she chose, ride off with the fruits of the joint labours of their fifteen years of married life, leaving Mr. Cotton saddled with debts which ho incurred in Iter interest, at least, as much as in his own. "The remedy for such an injustice," continued Hi? Honour, ''resides in Mrs. Cotton's sense of equity and justice—a quality in which I have 110 reason to think she is deficient." The decree will bo for a declaration and injunction, as in the statement of claim, with costs. The counter-ciaim is dismissed with costs. -