Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/412

 Some Tilings about Theatres. take her place, but as Spiers and Pond re fused to allow her, an action was brought by her husband. The jury sympathized with the poor woman, and said she ought to have £83 damages, as non-attendance on the night of the opening was not of such mate rial consequence to the theatre people as to entitle them to rescind the contract. The Court, however, and Mr. Blackburn was again the spokesman, differed from the gentlemen of the jury, and thought that, from the nature of the engagement to take a leading, and indeed the principal part (for the prima donna sang in male costume as the Prince de Conti) in a new opera, which it was known might run for a longer or shorter time, and so be a profitable or losing con cern to the defendants, they could (without the aid of the jury) see that it must have been of great importance to the defendants that the piece should start well, and conse quently that the failure of Madame Poussard to be able to perform on the opening and early performances was a very serious detri ment to them. The Judge further remarked that this- inability having been occasioned by sickness was not any breach of contract by the plaintiff, and no action could lie against him or his wife for the failure thus occasioned, but the damage to the defendants and the consequent failure of consideration was just as great as if it had been occasioned by the plaintiff's fault instead of his wife's indisposition. So judgment was given for Spiers & Pond. (Poussard v. Spiers, 1 Q.B.D. 410.) The Exchequer Court had previously expressed a similar opinion as to the non-liability of a party for breaking a professional engagement on account of ill ness. Arabella Goddard had engaged to play the piano at a concert for one Robin son; sickness prevented her; Robinson sued for damages: the contract said nothing as to what was to happen in case of illness : the Court held her excused, such a contract being in its nature not absolute but conditional upon ability to perform. ( Robinson v. Davi

379

son, L.R. 6 Ex. 269.) Similarly where Cald well agreed to provide Taylor with a room in a music hall for a particular occasion, the building having gone up in smoke before the time, when the Court would not hold Caldwell liable. (3 B. &S. 826.) An action cannot be maintained against a dancer for non-performance of her agreement to ex hibit her skill in the terpsichorean art on the boards of a London theatre if, at the time when she should have made her pirouettes, the theatre was unlicensed. (Gallini v. Laborie, 5 L.R. 242.) Actors and actresses must walk circum spectly around the back premises of the theatre and must beware of man-traps. If one fall through an opening in the floor, the judge may say to him what Erie J. said to Seymour, who, at the Princess Theatre, London, was grievously bruised and injured by falling through an unlighted, unguarded hole in the passage near the dressing-room : "A person must make his own choice whether he will accept employment on premises in this (bad) condition; and if he do accept such employment, he must also make his choice whether he will pass along the floor in the dark or carry a light. If he sustain injury in consequence of the premises not being lighted, he has no right of action against the master, who has not contracted that the floor should be lighted. (Seymour v. Maddox, 16 A. & E. [N.S.] 327) A performer who is called on to resume, in consequence of the illness of another, a part in which by previous performances she had acquired celebrity, is entitled to reason able notice before the time of the perform ance; and such notice should be propor tioned to the reputation at stake. (Graddon v. Price, 2 C. & P. 610.) In New York it has been held that a law forbidding the opening of theatres on Sunday is quite constitutional; and on the other ocean it has been decided that theatricals are among the " barbarous and