Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/410

 Some Things about Theatres. ish Nightingale nor a Black Swan. Actors now seem to be of such importance that even though there is no agreement on their part not to perform elsewhere, still the courts will not let them do so during an engagement. Dillon, having agreed to perform at Sadler's Wells in certain characters for twelve suc cessive nights, proposed to perform during the same period at another theatre. Sir W. Page Wood granted an injunction restraining him from acting at any other place than the plaintiff's theatre, during the ordinary hours of performance there for twelve consecutive nights. Sir R. Malins, V.C., went so far as to say that if a proprietor engages an actor to perform for him, the actor is not, because he is only wanted for three nights in the week, to. be at liberty to go and perform at any other theatre during the other three nights, and thereby take away the advantage of the contract he has entered into with his employer. This opinion was enunciated when C. P. Flockton wished to play Polonius in Hamlet at the Crystal Palace ere his time was up at the Globe Theatre. In his agree ment with the Globe managers to do the old man and character business there was no negative clause restricting him from per forming elsewhere; yet the V.C. would not let him go, although the performances at the Palace were in the day and would not necessarily interfere with those at the Globe, which were at night. He considered that a man agreeing to act in one particular theatre during the season is a party to a contract that he will act there and not anywhere else : and said that contract is as necessarily im plied as if it had been plainly expressed; the amiable judge, however, seemed anxious to soothe the feelings of the disappointed would-be Polonius, and so said in his judg ment: " I must treat Mr. Flockton as if he were the greatest actor in the world, and as if wherever he went the public would run after him" (Montague v. Flockton, L.R. 16 Eq. 189). The American courts seem to have wob

377

bled in this matter after much the same fash ion as their English contemporaries. Now, however, there seems to be no doubt that the managers may restrain an actor breaking his agreement and acting elsewhere whereever there is a negative clause. In fact it has been held that where the question is be tween different theatres in the same city, and a leading actor breaks his engagement with his manager and goes over to a rival establishment, without doubt an injunction will be granted whether the covenant not to play elsewhere is present or absent. (Colwell v. Cline, 8 Mart. (N.S.) 694; High on Injunctions, 2d Ed. Sec. 1666; 12 Cent. Law J. 391.) The courts are unwilling that talents should be hid under a bushel, and will not sympathize with a manager who for any reason wishes his employees to have per petual holiday. Mr. Fechter engaged Mr. Montgomery, who had been a provincial actor and desired to appear on the London boards, to perform Shakespeare's characters. Fechter kept Montgomery idle for five months, only requiring him to draw and spend his salary. Montgomery thought he was destined to be a star, he wished to work and shine, not to twinkle in the dark and be idle; so after the five months of perfect idle ness, and as apparently Fechter might be going to keep him unemployed for another five months, Montgomery would not submit, but struck and broke his engagement. Then the manager rushed into court and asked for an injunction to restrain the active-minded actor; but the Master of the Rolls considered that Fechter had broken his part of the agreement and so would not hold Mont gomery to his. He said there was mutuality in the agreement entered into on both sides : on the one side, that the actor should have an opportunity of displaying what his abili ties and talents were before a London audi ence, and on the other side, that he should not act elsewhere unless with the permission of the manager. (33 Beav. 22.)