A THEATRICAL DISPUTE.

Evening Star, Issue 7505, 25 April 1888, Page 3

A THEATRICAL DISPUTE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sik,—As you have published a letter from Mr William Murphy referring to my action against him for the return of the manuscript libretto of ' Les Cloches de Corneville,' will you kindly allow me to state the facts of the case, and so remove the false impression which Mr Murphy evidently wishes to convey. Some time last session Mr Albert Cohen, on behalf of Mr Murphy, asked me what the fees would be for the performance of the opera in question, and whether I could supply a copy of the libretto. I replied that the fees would be L 3 3s per night, and that on payment of a guinea I would lend the manuscript. Several weeks afterwards I received a letter from Messrs Westley and Demain, solicitors, Melbourne, stating that some Dunedin amateurs had applied to Mr R. Stewart, to whom the acting rights for these colonics belong, asking for terms, and that they had been referred to me as the NewZealand agent. Some special instructions as to the fees were also given to me. Shortly after this Mr Albert Cohen informed mo that he had received a cheque for a guinea from Mr Murphy, and he asked me to send the libretto to Dunedin. This I did at once, and subsequently received the cheque from Mr Cohen. The libretto bore on its face a notice to the effect that it was my property'; that it was to be returned at the end of the season for which it was lent, and for whicli fees had to be paid ; that no copy was to be retained ; that it was not to be printed ; and fhat it was not to be lent to anyone else. This notice, I may say, had been torn olf when the MS. was subsequently returned to me. By the same mail as I sent the libretto I wrote to Mr Murphy, informing him what the fees would be, and that they were payable in advance. I heard nothing more until I noticed the performance advertised in the Dunedin papcrß. Immediately prior to the first representation I telegraphed to Mr Murphy, reminding him that the fees had not been paid, or any arrangement made, and that consequently I had not given permission for the performance to take place. I warned Mr Murphy that by playing without permission he exposed th« 'performers to heavy penalties. I received no reply. A week later I again wired to Mr Murphy, asking him to send the fees, and to return the libretto immediately the season was over. Mr Murphy did not reply. When the twelve performances were concluded I again wired to Mr Murphy to remit the fees, but got no reply. When a few days after I noticed another performance advertised for the benefit of Jeffrey, and knowing by experience the efforts always made to avoid paying fees when the object is a charitable one, I again wired to Mr Murphy warning him that he was liable for the fees, and that they would be enforced. As usual, no answer was returned. I was not aware of the M'Cutcheon performance until it had taken place. hen I knew of it I once more wired Mr Murphy, demanding the fees for the fourteen performances, and informing him that if they were not paid by a time named I would place the matter in the hands of my lawyers. No notice being taken of this, I instructed Messrs Stewart Holmeo, and Denniston to demand payment of the fees for fourteen performances and the return of the libretto. Tbey had an interview with Mr Murphy, and in pruned me that he repudiated f responsibility for the two charitable performances, as they -vere managed by public committees, and

that the reason he had not paid the other fees was that he was not aware of what liiy position or authority was. They also informed mo that he had forwarded the fees for the twelve performances to Mr VV. T. L. Travers, of Wellington. Immediately on receipt of this letter, on March 12, I wrote to Mr Murphy snying that, after my repeated communications with him, his appl ; cation to Mr Stewart in Melbourne, and his obtaining the libretto from me, he certainly could not bo in any doubt as to my position, but that I was quite content to receive the money through Mr Travers for the twelve performances As to the other two, I pointed out that I had warned him ; and that if he had taken no part as manager, his wife had as a performer, and was theretore liable, with all the other performers, for penalties for performing without authority. I repeated my demand for these fee 3, and also lor the return of the libretto, informing Mr Murphy that unless it was sent back by return of post I should take legal proceedings. No notice of this letter was taken. On the 14th March I saw Mr Travers, who read to me a letter, which I suppose was from Air Murphy, instructing him to endeavor to obtain a reduction of fee to L2 2s per night, which the writer said Miss Sherwin's agent said was the usual fee; and also to satisfy himself as to Mr Stewart's and my authority, as the same agent said Mr Stewart's right did not extend to New Zealand. I may say line that Hcrr Gorlitz (the agent referred to) absolutely denies that he ever made any such statements. I easily satisfied Mr Travers as to Mr Stowart's right and my own, and showed him my special instructions as to the fees to be charged. Mr Travers thereupon handed me a cheque for L 37 16s, and I gave a receipt —not in full, as Mr Murphy alleges, but for the sum named as fees for twelve performances. Mr Travers also read to me a statement that the two other performances were managed by Mr Ashjroft and Mr Smith respectively, and that they were the persons responsible for tho fees. I wrote to these gentlemen asking payment without prejudice to my right to recover penalties from the performers, if the fees were not paid. I have since received a reply from Mr Smith and payment from Mr Ashcroft, through Mr Gully. I waited until the 2Gth March for return of the MS., as demanded in my letter of tho 12th, and as I received no reply I took out a summons against Mr Murphy. The day before the day of hearing I received the MS. back through the post in a dirty, torn, and generally dilapidated condition, and at 10.35 on the following morning I got a telegram from a Mr Agnew, saying the manuscript had been posted to me, and that he sent me by telegram lis—cost of summons. I received this just as I was leaving my oflicc for the Court, where my solicitor, Mr Bunny, already wus, The amount sent by Mr Agnew of conrse did not cover his fee or the expenses I had been put to, much less the damage done to the manuscript. When the case was called on, therefore, Mr Bunny stated the facta, and I i.sked for a nominal sum (10s) as damages, so as to get costs. The Magistrate after consideration gave judgment for what I asked. Had I asked a couple of guineas I would certainly have got it ; but I explained that my only object was to show people to who valuable manuscripts were lent on hire that they must take proper care of them and return them when required. I have now stated the plain facts. Comment is unnecessary. The members of the I'inaforc Company cm judge who is to blame —1 am, etc., E. T. Cillon. Wellington, Aptil 17.