A Theatrical Lawsuit.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXI, Issue XII, 19 September 1903, Page 846

A Theatrical Lawsuit.

SLAPOFFSKI V. G. MUSGROVE. MELBOURNE, September 4. Tn the Practice Court to-day an application was made to Justice Holroyd to have judgment entered for the plaintiff in the action Slapoffski v. G. Musgrove, unless His Honor was satisfied that the defendant had good defence to the suit. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Frances Slapoffski, a well-known opera singer, claimed from George Musgrove, of the Princess Theatre, the sum of £930 13/4, for work and labour done as an operatic singer at defendant’s request between January 16 and August 6, 1903, the claim being calculated at the rate of £8 6/8 for each performance during the period specified. The plaintiff had performed in all 146 times, and she received on account £285, leaving the above balance. The particulars appended to the writ showed that the plaintiff claimed to have appeared on 40 occasions at Sydney, 40 at the Princess Theatre, Melbourne, and subsequently at Hobart, Zeehan, and other parts of Tasmania, and finally at the Princess Theatre on 25 occasions. Mr Colodham, who opposed the application, handed in affidavits which he submitted should satisfy the court that there was good defence. An affidavit by Ernest Collins, secretary to the defendant, set out that between the dates men tioned in the plaintiff’s claim Madame Slapoffski did perform work and labour for the defendant under a verbal agreement at a salary of £25 per week, and during such time received moneys on account of salary amounting to £3lO, leaving a balance due to the plaintiff of

£269. This balance was held for the nlaintiff, subject to the disposal of a counter claim to be hereafter mentioned. It was verbally agreed between the parties that the plaintiff should appear as the prima donna in the comic operas ‘The Serenade” and “The Daughter of the Regiment,” to be staged at the Princess Theatre on August 8 and six following nights, and that she should thereafter accompany the defendant’s Comic Opera Company on tour through New Zealand. On the afternoon of 5, the husband of the plaintiff had a disagreement with the defendant, which disagreement had no connection with the plaintiff’s engagement at the theatre or in regard to any claim that she may have thereunder, and the plaintiff’s husband informed the defendant that he was finished with him. Following this disagreement the plaintiff in wilful breach of her agreement, and without notice on hei- part, did not appear in “The Serenade” that evening or at all, and did not go to New Zealand with defendant’s Comic Opera Company. Owing to such breach of agreement the defendant was put to great expense and sustained great damage and loss to his reputation, and defendant estimated such loss at between £3OOO and £4OOO, which he counter-claimed from the plaintiff. It having appeared that the defendant had a good defence to the suit, and it being agreed that the defendant should pay the sum of £269 3/4, the balance of the account due to the plaintiff according to the defendant into court, His Honor ordered the pleadings, and directed that the action be tried in Melbourne by a judge and jury.