February 25.] 
THE FIELD. 
nndTubmitted to them (Mr. and Miss Wagner) the printed form 
r “JnKmt They objected to it ns too complicated. I then 
° f to Mr Wagner that ho should draw up one, which he 
P r ? p r considered it, and after some discussion, this contract 
d, f; a<rrid upon (except the last article). Miss Wagner signed 
?! at contract^ ji r . a „d Miss Wagner are both well acquainted 
the French language. I delivered the contract to Mr. 
T .nlw at Paris. Be objected that one stipulation was 
Sted I added it. It was to the effect that Miss Wagner 
nlrmred to make use of her talent at no concert or public or 
®"f vate assembly without Mr. Lumley’s consent. It was signed 
me on the part of Miss Wagner, according to my understanding 
51 r . and Miss Wagner. I wrote to Miss Wagner, and told 
- • is.**: — j afterwords met Miss W sgner at 
w of the additional article. ^ — v. . - . f 
Unmburg, and conferred personally with her on the subject ot 
this letter of the 10th of Murch. I never heard from her that she 
lind not received it. , , 
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. — I was at Hambur,. 
in Easter week in the month of April. I arrived there on the 
-i Oth of April. The first thing she said was, “ I have committed 
n verv bud action against you.” I said, “What have you done ? 
Slie said, “ I have signed another engagement.” I answered, 
*• That is impossible.” She said, “ As I signed the engagement 
mv hands trembled, but Mr. Gye has been here to say to us that 
"Mr. Lumley would not open, and offered me 20,000f. moro, and 
pave me a guarantee for all the damages. I was so much em- 
barrassed, I had not timo to think. You have not sent me the JUU/., 
and thereupon we signed.” Upon that I replied, “ Have I not 
written to you and ofiered to you payment, and asked you it 1 
should send the monoy to Berlin or bring it to Hamburg 
myself? Upon this I received your answer that you would 
ece me at Hamburg. Therefore, ns you did not wish to receive 
the money at Berlin, I have now como ready to pay you. Upon 
this she said she regretted very much she had signed it. Upon 
that I asked why she had not asked legal counsel before she 
pinned it. She answered she had no time to doit; that Mr. 
Gye pressed upon her to sign it. She then said, “After that, 
we saw our counsel, and he said to us we did very wrong to 
^Robert Dixon, examined by Mr. Higgins. — I am the printer of 
the Morning Post. I produce the manuscript of a letter in- 
serted in the Morning Post on the 22nd of April, 1852. I 
also produce the manuscripts of bills and advertisements of the 
Italian Opera-house, Covent-garden. 
John Alitchell examined. — For 12 years I was lessee of the St. 
James’s Theatre. For some years I have rented stalls and boxes 
of Mr. Lumley, since he lias been lessee of Her Majesty’s 
Theatre. In February, 1852, I saw Mr. Lumley at Paris. He 
showed me the contract with Miss Wagner. Her name was 
already known to me. In consequence of Boeing that contract I 
entered into one with Mr. Lumley, to rent stalls and boxes. I 
was to pay 15,400/. That was three times as much as in the pre- 
ceding years. I made the engagement known to my friends and 
connexions, to whom I relet the stalls and boxes. On the 2Gtk 
of March Mr. Lumley’s programme oppeared, in which Miss 
Wagner was announced. I caused a reprint of that to be circu- 
lated among my friends and connexions, and let boxes and 
stalls upon that basis. Shortly after Mr. Gye called upon me, 
and I told him of the purchase of boxes I had made of Mr. 
Lumley. I told him of the amount — 15,4001. I told him I had 
such confidence in Miss Wagner, and that her engagement had 
been the chief inducement to my largo contrnct. On the 11th or 
12th of April I saw Mr. Gye again. He told mo ho hod engaged 
Miss Wagner ; that Mr. Lumley certainly could not have her 
services; and he could not imagine what he could do to curry on 
the season. There had been an announcement of this fact, which 
had created great astonishment, and many persons who were ne- 
gotiating with me for boxes discontinued, nnd declined to take 
them up ; and other persons, who had really taken them, gave 
them up. I hod taken CO boxes. I was able to let altogether 
only five boxes during the season, and that only by reducing the 
price. The rest were all unlet during the season. I hod token the 
boxes and stalls for G5 nights. At the end of the 47th night I put 
an end to the contract, by negotiation with Mr. Lumley. The 
reason for so doing was the non-appearance of Miss Wngner. On 
the making of the contract I hnd paid 4,000Z. in cash, and 3,0001. 
in bills; and afterwards I made a further payment, making in all 
10,000/. That wa3 in full of the contract. Mr. Lumley gave 
up 4,800/. The non-appearance of Miss Wngner was very 
calamitous to the theatre. There was no demand for boxes at 
all. We could not let them at all. I lost more than 5,000/. 
— Fish, examined by Mr. Hoggins. — Was hallkeeper to the 
plaintiff in 1852, nnd it was his duty to serve notices of rehearsal 
upon the several artistes. Amongst them he served notice on 
Mndlle. Wagner, on the 20th of April ; but she did not attend 
cither ot rehearsals or performance. The first announcement of 
her expected appearance, was published in the bills on the 13th 
of April, nnd tho announcements were continued up to the 27th. 
Jonathan Wadge, examined by Sir F. Thosiger, deposed that 
he is a wine merchant and an opera agent in the vicinity of the 
theatre. He was enabled to soy that the consequences of Mndlle. 
Wagner’s violation of engagement with Mr. Lumley wero very 
disastrous indeed. 
John Rush, examined by Mr. Hoggins.— Was the manager of 
Mr. Cokeley’s establishment, in Bond-street, nnd the amount of 
his last subscription was 1,492/. The nightly average of his 
takings, previous to 1852, was about 4S0Z. a-yenr, and in 1852 
his takings were nothing at all. He had made a contract with 
Mr. Lumley, in consequence of the announcement that Mndlle. 
Wngner would appear ; but it turned out a failure, nnd he made 
an allowance to Mr. Cokeloy in consequence, of 280/. out of 
1,429/. The announcement that Mndlle. Wagner was to 
appear at Covent Garden was a very great blow to her Majesty’s 
Theatre. _ ,, 
Mr. Mnpleson, examined by Sir F. Thesiger. — In the month 
of November I received instructions from Mr. Lumley to prepare 
the getting up of the Huguenots and Le Prophcte, nnd the 
cost of getting them up was upwards of 250/. each. Those operas 
were never performed at the theatre before. Mndlle. Wagner 
was announced to appear in the opern of Le Prophet e, but 
neither opera was produced in consequence of the non-appear- 
ance of Mndlle. Wngner. He had prepared the scores, and all 
was ready for her appearance. 
Other witnesses were colled to prove the damnges incurred by 
Mndlle, Wagner’s non-appenrnnee — viz., M. Gantz, chorus- 
master; Miss Bradley, superintendent of the wardrobe; Mr. 
Nugent, director of the box-office ; nnd Mr. John Allcroft. 
This closed tho plaintiff’s case. 
The Attorney-General then addressed the jury for tho defence, 
after which Mr. Frederick Gye was called, nnd examined by 
Mr. Brnmwell. — I am the defendant, nnd first saw Miss Wogner 
in 1845, at Dresden, where I heard her sing; but hud no per- 
sonal communication with her. I again heard her sing, either 
ut the end of July or beginning of September, at Hamburg, nnd 
entered into communication with her about an engagement ; 
but her Berlin engagement was then an obstacle. The two 
letters now put into my hand in the French langunge, wero 
' written to me by her fathor, a paragraph in ono of which re- 
quested mo to renew my oilers for unother season, stating that 
‘■perhaps in the next true English season, when her prospects 
of success might bo greater, and if ho wished to tuke advan- 
tage of it, it would be necessary for him to apply to her in time, 
when she would be happy to enter into an engagement with 
him.” I went to Berlin at tho latter end of the opera season of 
1851, and in preeence of Mdlle. Wagner’s father, made pro- 
posals to her, offering her 2,000/. for tho whole of the London 
season. She did not accept any terms from me then, but I 
believe the most favourable terms that I offered her was that 
of 2,000/., and an offer of 1,000/. down. She did not accept of 
my offer, owing, I believe, to her Berlin engagement; but she 
thanked me, and hoped I would, at some future time, renew my 
offer to her. I then went to Italy, nnd on my return in October 
I again saw her, and renewed the offer, but she did not accept of 
it, reasoning that she had been offered a permanent engagement 
at the Court Theatre, Borlin, tho nature of which was valuable, 
inasmuch as it proposed to secure her a provision for life in tho 
event of her becoming ill. On my return to Berlin, I heard from 
her that Dr. Bachar had been with her on the purtof Mr. Lumley, 
and hnd made her an oiler of an engagement. I then said to her, 
“ Well, I will probably come to Berlin again.” A correspondence 
subsequently took place botween us, and in the courso of it she 
wrote to me that she had been very reluctantly drawn into on 
engagement with Mr. Lumley, and expressive of her regret; but 
Muting that she could not help it. She intimated that at a future 
time she would be happy to enter into nn engagement with mo. 
I answered that letter, and said I should be most happy to come 
to terms with her. [The letters wore put in nnd reud.] I went 
subsequently to Berlin, and saw her ; and in a subsequent corres- 
pondence I proposed an engagement, by which she should sing 
six or eight nights for me, after herengagoment with Mr. Lumley 
would have terminated. I never asked her to break her engage- 
ment with Mr. Lumley. 
Lord Campbell, — Did you know, 5Ir. Gye, that sho was then 
under nn engagement to Mr. Lumley? 
Mr. Gye. — I knew, my lord, that sho was then under nn en- 
gagement to Mr. Lumley for three months, having heard so from 
Mr. Lumley. I subsequently wrote to her. [Tho letter was hero 
put in, and exhibited a passage in which Mr. Gye put the ques- 
tion to Mdlle. Wagner, “ Is it truo that you havo bound yourself 
by aclnuse in tho agreement with Mr. Lumley not to sing at uny 
other theatre?” and questioned her, was it so; and itthen went on 
to say that he (Mr. Gye) would observe most faithful secrecv, and 
expressed a readiness to oblige nnd serve her at all times.^ To 
that letter she did not return me any reply ; nnd I subsequently 
wrote to her, asking her to give me ono word in reply, and tell- 
ing her that the opera of Le Prophete was mino ; that no one 
else could play it; that Mr. Lumley had announced that her 
Majesty’s Theatre would open on a given night ; that it did not 
open ; and that it was doubtful whether it would open on tho 
night for which it was subsequently announced. Not receiving 
any answer to the second letter, I proceeded again to Berlin, and 
saw Modemoisello Wagner, her father, mother, and several friends 
present. My first question to her on entering the apartment 
was, “Why have you not written to me?” and her reply, in 
French, was, “ I ain free.” She then said she expected a sum of 
money from London which she had not received, nnd that she 
had deferred answering my letter in the hope that she would 
receive it. I then asked her particulars, nud sho told mo 
that Mr. Lumley had undertaken to let her havo 300/., nnd ho 
failed to do so, and she was therefore free to make on engage- 
ment with me. I said in reply that I was ns ready then, ns 1 
always had been, to offer her an engagement, and, in fact, I did 
offer her ono. That was before I had seen tho contract between 
her nnd Mr. Lumley. I offered her 2,000/. and a month’s salary 
in advance; nnd alter some conversation between her, her futhcr, 
some friends of theirs who were present, and myself, I took a 
piece of paper, and wrote the agreement, engaging her at 2,000/. 
lor the season, nnd binding her not to sing at uny other theatre 
without my permission, nor at any private party for money. I 
also gave her a cheque on Mons. Jnque and Co., Hamburg. 
When I arrived in London, I advertised Mdlle. Wngner to appear. 
On arrival at Calais from Hamburg, I telegraphed the adver- 
tisement to London ; nnd, prior to that time, I hnd never 
ordered an advertisement respecting Mdlle. Wngner'sappearnnce. 
With respect to the letter which appeared in tLe Morning Post 
signed “ Albert Wogner,” and drawn up in my handwriting, I 
beg to explain that it occurred in this way : — A letter nppeured 
in the Sunday Times reflecting upon Mdle. Wogner in relation 
to Mr. Lumley; that letter was copied into the Morning Adver- 
tiser, nnd [into the Sun, nnd Mr. Wagner then furnished me 
with facts, nnd I drew up and read a letter for him in reply ; and 
copies having been made of them for the morning papers, he 
signed them nil, with one exception, which I signed. 
Mr. Joseph Langham Dole was examined. He deposed that 
he was a solicitor, nnd that he had prepared the deed of indemnity 
given by Mr. Gye to the Wagners, ogainst any legal consequences 
that might arise from their entering into an engagement with 
Mr. Gye, should it turn out that Mdllo. Wagner hnd, in entering 
into it, violated her previous engagement with Mr. Lumley. 
Mr. Thomas Burgess, solicitor for theWagnors in tho Chancery 
proceedings, gave testimony respecting the injunction obtained 
by Mr. Lumley to restrain Mdlle. Wagner from singing at Mr. 
Gye’s theatre while the term of her engagement with Mr. 
Lumley was pending. 
Mr. George Tamplin, defendant’s attorney, was also examined; 
and he deposed to the unsuccessful efforts made by the parties 
in the cause, to hnve Mdlle. Wagner subjected to an examination, 
as to her knowledge of the facts of the case in issue, and that a 
sum of 500/. had been expended in the endeavour. 
The return to the commission which proceeded to Borlin to 
examine the Wagners, was here put in, as an exhibition of the 
effort and of its fuiluro. 
Charles Delille, French instructor of Christ’s Hospital, gave a 
translation of the passngo in Wagner’s letter of the Oth March— 
“ If you send the bill of exchange, have tho goodness to forward 
it to Berlin, or by ( des ) the 2nd April to Hamburg, to our 
bankers, where we shall stay some time at the house of our 
daughter nnd sister, lately murried.” When the article “d&>” 
Is used with reference to an event occurring at a time passed, it 
means “ beginning at.” It is used to dcsignato a time fixed 
and near, with regard to the future. This is according to the 
best authorities. It means “ by,” and not “after.” 
By Lord Campbell.— Tho letter is not good French. 
Cross-examined. — It is not classical French. It is not such 
French as I should write. The meaning of “ dSs” may depend 
upon the context. 
Re-examined. — A person writing this letter would be bound 
to do whatever they had to do “ by” such u day, and not “ after.” 
If “ des” was connected with tho sequence, I should have felt a 
doubt; but, to be on the safe side, I should liuve sent it on the 
2nd. 
Cross-examined. — If I was to say that I should translate a 
work “des demain,” I should begin it “to-morrow.” 
Mr. Leicester Buckingham, treasurer in 1851 and 1852 at Mr. 
Lumley’s theatre at Paris, and Mr. Lender, music-seller in 
Bond-street, were also examined, the former as to his knowledge 
of Mr. Lumley’s pecuniary circumstances in those years, and the 
latter ns to the supposed deprecatory effect of Mdlle. Wagner’s 
alleged breach of contract on Mr. Lumley’s prospects at her 
Majesty’s Theatre. 
Lord Campbell then very minutely summed up the evidence 
to the jury, and in so doing said there would bo three questions 
for their consideration. The first was, whether the agreement 
which hnd been entered into between tho plaintiff' and Miss 
Wngner remained in force at the time when it was ullcged the 
defendant had induced her to break it; secondly, whether the 
defendant induced Miss Wogner to break the agreement, and 
whether she broke it in consequence of his inducement ; and, 
thirdly, whether the defendant ot that time know thai the agree- 
ment between Miss Wagner nnd the plaintiff' wus then in exist- 
ence. Upon those questions his (Lord Campbell’s) direction in 
point of low in reference to the agreement was, that tho payment 
of tho 300/. on the 15th of March wus a condition precedent, nnd 
that, if it was not performed, she (Miss Wagner) was at liberty 
to renounce the agreement. But Miss Wngner might have agreed 
that the time for performing the agreement should be extended, 
and it would be for the jury to consider, upon the evidence, how 
far she had done so, and whether the defendant had induced her 
to break the agreement before the oxtended time bad expired. 
The second question was a pure question of fact for the dotor- 
187 
mination of tho jury. Upon tho third question, his (Lord 
Campbell’s) direction was, that if the defendant bona Jide be- 
lieved that the agreement with tho plaintiff had ceased to be 
binding upon Miss Wagner, the scienter was not proved, and 
the defendant would ho entitled to tho verdict. His lordship 
then rend over all tho material parts of tho evidence, nnd finally 
left the nbovo threo questions to tho jury, with tho observation 
that, if they should find a verdict for tho plaintiff’, they ought to 
givo such damnges as would be a compensation for the pecuniary 
loss directly caused by Miss Wagner’s breach of her ngreement. 
The jury rotired to consider their verdict, and upon their return 
into court found tho first two questions in tho affirmative, nnd tho 
third In the negative. This amounted to a verdict for tho de- 
fendant. Verdict for the Defendant. 
police Intelligence. 
GUILDHALL. 
The Gunpowder Case. — Mr. John Clemmitt, tho proprietor 
of Clemmitt’s Inn, in tho Old Bniley, appeared on Tuesdny, upon 
nn information before Alderman Carter, to answer u oliargo of 
keeping on his premises at ono tiino moro than 50 lbs. weight of 
gunpowder, ho not being n denier, and his premises being within 
half a mile of the parish church of St. Sopulehre, contrary to tho 
Btatutc. There was also nnot her information, calling upon Mr. 
Clemmitt to show causo why tho gunpowder, of which there won 
abotit 12cwt., should not be adjudged to bo forfeited. Mr. 
Bodkin said he appeared on behalf of Messrs. Pigou nnd Co., 
who were largely interested in this case, ns they were manufac- 
turers of gunpowder, and it was their custom to transmit gun- 
powder to Clemmitt's Inn for tho purpose of its being convoyed 
to different parts of tho kingdom, nnd it was nover allowed to 
remain on tho defendant's premises longer than was necessary. 
On tho present occasion tho officers saw tho curt como into tho 
yard with the gunpowder, nnd a waggon waiting to tako it uway, 
and, had the seizure been delayed only half nn hour longer, tho 
whole of tho ten casks that hud arrived that morning would havo 
been again on the road to their different destinations. Mr. Doylo 
said the observations mnde by Mr. Bodkin with regard to the 10 
casks would apply equally to tho other 9 casks, all of which might 
bo said to be in transitu — tho only difference being as to time. 
Alderman Corter having carefully considered all the facts of tho 
case, said he had come to the conclusion that the 10 casks which 
arrived at tho defendant’s promises shortly before tho seizure 
were in transitu ; but with regnrd to tho other nino casks, ho 
considered the 21st section justified him in saying that tho 
defendant did not use duo diligonco, and ho was, therefore, liable 
to all tho consequences of forfelturo nnd nttendnut ponnltics. 
The penalties are — forfeiture of tho gunpowder (t397 lbs.) nnd 2*. 
fine for every pound exceeding 50 lbs., amounting in all, exclusive 
of tho value of the gunpowder, to (59/. 14,». 
THAMES. 
Murderous Affray amongst Foreigners.— Jacopo I gar - 
dino, 29, an Italian seaman, lodging at 3, Noptuno-street, 
Wcllclose-squnrc. and Dominieo Mattel, 22. also nn Italian, 
belonging to the ship Barnna, in tho London Docks, woro charged 
with cutting nnd wounding Henry Dittmnr, a German, who 
keeps the Angel nnd Crown, Ship-alley, Wollclosc-squurc, and 
also Caspar Frindcrton, who lies in nn almost hopeless state at 
the London Hospital, with intent to do them grievous bodily 
harm. — It was very difficult, from tho confused way in which tho 
cose was got up, nnd from the fact of tho prisoners not under- 
standing English, to arrive at anything definito ; but from what 
could ho collected the nft'air was of u most dospernto character. — 
5Irs. Elizabeth Dittraar, the landlady of the Angel nnd Crown, 
stated that tho prisoners nnd two others, named Smith and 
llussican, who were placed at tho dock at tho same time, but dis- 
charged for wont of evidence, were up stairs in tho long room of 
her house on tho previous night, together with several others, 
mostly foreigners. At a little post eleven o’clock sho heard a dis- 
turbance, when her husband immediately rushed down stairs, 
and falling into her arms, exclaimed, “ I am stabbed.” Seeing 
that his eye was swollen and bleeding, sho thought it was there 
he had sustained the injury, but subsequently ascertained that 
the wound of which he complained was in the thigh, near tho 
groin. He had scarcely descended when Mattei nnd Igardino 
followed, tho former brandishing tho knifo produced — a formid- 
able weapon, dagger-shaped, with a blade about soven inches in 
length. Her husband pointed ut Igardino, nnd said ho was tho 
person who stabbed him nnd struck him in tho eye, upon which 
31nttei ran at her with tho dagger, and would hnve stabbed her 
had not her mother dragged her buck out of the reach of his blow. 
The prisoners, through an interpreter, said they struck no 
blow, and had neither knife nor dagger. Susan Moor, a 
woman who was in tho room, said that in tho confusion 
arising out of a dispute between tho foreigners, Mr. Dittmnr, 
who was serving, accidently dropped some beer on ono 
of tho girl’s bonnets, on which she complained that it was not 
every day she could pay 3s. for one. Mr. Dittmur told her to como 
next day ami ho would give her a new one. Another foreigner 
who wns with tho girl said there was no occasion for tlint while 
wo have money, upon which Igardino struck Mr. Dittmur in tho 
eye, and then stabbed him with tho dogger.— Elizabeth Kuzler, 
Mrs. Dittmar’s mother, described how she snatched her daughter 
from the reach of Mattei, when lie made the stab nt her.— Ser- 
geant Comeron, 23 H, heard at twelve o’clock that Mr. Dittmur 
and another person hnd been stabbed, nnd on tho information ho 
received, took Mattei into custody at his lodgings in Neptune- 
street, whilst another constable took Igardino in charge. Mattei 
wns so violent ond made such furious attempts to get uway, in- 
citing the other foreigners to rescue him, that witness was com- 
pelled to use his staff' to secure him, and it was with great 
difficulty that he was conveyed to the station-house. On lodging 
him there, witness, on returning by tho route through which 
they had passed, observed the knife, which hnd been thrown over 
u railing.— In answer to Mr. Yurdley, Mrs. Dittmur said she did 
not know when her husband would be able to attend. lie was 
at first in a very dangerous state, when the doctor was enlied in, 
and appeared to be worse that morning. With respect to tho 
other man, Frinderton, no evidence was adduced to show Imw ho 
came by tho injuries which he has sustained. All that appeared 
to be known was, that ho hud received a desperate gash in tho 
abdomen, from which ho lies in serious danger, but no certificate 
was put in. — Mr. Yordley, under the circumstances, remanded 
tho case. Tho house in question is remarkublo for tho fre- 
quency of such outrages amongst Germans nnd other foreigners. 
MARLBOROUGH STREET. 
Street Nuisances.— A batch of German hornployora wero 
brought before Mr. Bingham, charged with having played in 
Lcicester-fqunre, to tho annoyance of tradesmen, and with 
having refused to remove when requested. The clerk of Mr. 
Ilidgwny, general ogent, Leicester-squaro, said his employer de- 
sired him to tell the musicians to leave the vicinity of tho house, 
as the noise interfered with business. He did so. The musicians 
refused to leave, and the police were colled upon to interfere. 
Mr. Bingham asked what was the nature of tho business that 
the music interrupted ? The clerk said Mr. Rideway was dic- 
tating letters to Ins foreign correspondents at the time, lho 
nuisance was increased, he feared, from tho fact of Leicester- 
gqunrc being thronged with foreigners, who gave encouragement 
to these travelling orchestras. 31 r. Bingham sent for nn inter- 
preter, and desired him to explain the law to the defendants. 
He had much more coropnssion for theso musicians than for 
organ-players with their horrible noises; and it was perhaps more 
excusable to piny in tho streets nt two o’clock in the day thnu at 
eleven o’clock nt night. But the defendants must bo mnde to 
understand that tho law of the country obliged them to move 
away, if a housekeeper having a sick house, or a tradesmau 
