BEHIND THE SCENES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2427, 5 February 1895, Page 2

BEHIND THE SCENES.

WALTEE BENTLEYIN COUET. An interesting theatrical case was heard before Mr Martin, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Flockton and Co. sued Walter Bentley, the wellknown actor, and Manfred ■ Eose, theatrical agent, for £l3 11s 2d, for goods supplied during the company’s season at the. Opera House in September, 1394. Mr Gray appeared for Flockton and Co., Sir Eobert Stout for Mr Bentley and Mr Skerrett for Mr Eose. ;

Mr Gray in opening the base said ho did not know there was - any dispute as to the correctness of the account, but the question was whether Mr Bentley was liable ;as a partner in this theatrical venture. It appeared that some time in June or July of last year Messrs Bentley and Eose, who wore in Melbourne at the time, entered into an arrangement to tour Now Zealand, the arrangement being that they were to share and share alike. The members of the company’ were engaged by Mr Bentley, and for some time he kept the books, or they were kept under bis direction.

John . Flockton deposed that he received orders-for some of (the goods from both defendants.; In answer to ’Sir Eobert Stout, he admitted he had never made any claim on ’Mr Bentley until the summons was issued. He sent the bill , into the manager, Mr Eose. He could not say that Mr Bentley did anything that a stage manager would not have done. During the week the company played recently at the Theatre. Eoyal, witness acted as treasurer, at Mr Hose's suggestion; but ho did not pay this account out of the takings, as the season was a poor one, and he thought it would - not he fair to the members. He joined Mr Bentley in this action from something Mr Eose told him. Manfred Eose gave a history of the way in which he and Mr Belltley arranged the tour. They were in i Melbourne at the ctime, he said, and Mr Bentley induced him to come into the venture of a New Zealand tour, saying lie would bo all right in this Colony—Dunedin was his stronghold, the people being all Scotch. Mr Bentley had no money, so he (witness) pawned Mr Bentley's diamonds for £2O, of which the latter kept, £lO to pay his board. The other £lO witness took to ’Launceston,, where ,his name waa wellknown, and ready money ' waa not a necessity. Mr Bentley engaged moat of the members of the company, and they “very nearly” got a speculator to come into the venture; but ultimately the negotiations fell through. The arrangement between witness and Mr Bentley was , that they were to share and share alike. During the tour ho never paid Mr Bentley a salary. Witness’, duties were those of business manager of - the company. When at Auckland ho signed a deed under which it was arranged that he and Bentley should each receive one-third of tho profits, the other third to go to general disbursements. Eeplying to Sir Eobert Stout, witness adhered ti hia former assertion that he and Bentley were partners in the venture ■ on equal terms. When in Woodvillo, where Bentley was sued, ho gave the following evidence: — “ Mr Bentley is in my employ as a theatrical star. He has been with me for six months. We commenced inMelbourne. Myarrangement when at Napier was that Mr Bentley should receive a share of the profits. Mr Bentley receives a share of the profits only,” When they were playing at Napier the Auckland deed was not signed. Mr Bentley was in his employment on sharing terms. Tho evidence given at Woodville was true. He represented that he waa responsible to “ save the show" and to keep it from collapsing, Ha did not remember representing so before the agreement was signed at Auckland, but' he might have done so. He did a lot of funny things to keep the show going. Be-examined: Mr Bentley was sued at Woodville, and if the effects had been seized they were afraid tho company would bo stranded.

M. Majorcan, a member of the company, said he was engaged by .Mr Bentley at. a salary of £A per week. The agreement waa . reduced to, writing afterwards. Mr Bentley- brought the agreement to him, and he signed it, but no one else signed it. At that, time he honestly believed he was being engaged by Mr Bentley, who said he proposed taking acompany to .New Zealand. Witness asked a certain salary, but he had to reduce it, as -Mr Bentley said the gentleman who was hacking him had only allowed him a certain sum for wages. To Sir Robert Stent: He knew nothing o| Mr Rose, and did not see him until a week later, when ho did not know who ho was! Ho did not read the agreement before signing it. ’ By Mr Skerrett ; After leaving Auckland he thought Mr Bentley took the management of the company. He had frequently during the tour received; his salary from Mr Bentley’s hands, Mr Bose, re-callod, said Mr Bentley had had JE239 out of the tout.

The case was then adjourned until 9 o’clock this morning, when Mr Bentley is to be called as a witness. A number of actions brought against Messrs Bose and Bentley by members of the company will also be heard to-day. v