Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Wednesday 24 June 1914, page 9


NO. 2 JURY COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Sly and juries.)

SCHOOL TEACHER'S CLAIM.

The hearing of the action brought by John Hardcastle, head teacher of the Wetherill Park Public School, against Owen Tarrent, of Wetherill Park, for libel alleged to be con-tained in a letter forwarded by the defendant to Mr. P. Board, Under-Secretary for Public Instruction, was concluded. Plaintiff claimed

£50 damages.

The jury found a verdict for the full amount

claimed.

AN ACTOR'S CLAIM.

Arthur Shirley v George Willoughby.

This was an action brought by Arthur Shir-ley, actor, of Sydney, against George Wil-loughby, theatrical manager, also of Sydney, for the recovery of £1000 damages.

Plaintiff set out that he was a professional actor, and while under engagement with J. C. Williamson, Ltd., defendant induced that firm to break and abandon the contract with plain-tiff, and he therefore suffered considerable loss financially, and was injured professionally.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and denied that the plaintiff had an engagement with J. C. Williamson, Ltd.

Mr. Mack (instructed by Mr. W. M. Daley appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Shand, K.C., and Mr. Wyndham Davies (instructed by Mr. A. B. Davies) for the defendant.

Plaintiff, in his evidence, said that he had been playing in defendant's companies for a considerable time. Shortly before last Christ-mas a notice was posted at the Adelphi The-atre notifying the members of the company in which he was playing that all engagements would terminate on a certain date. After Christmas plaintiff interviewed the defendant regarding an engagement, and he was offered one at £4 10s per week. He re-fused the offer, saying that he would have nothing to do with any position which

carried anything under £6 per week. He saw defendant about a week later, and he repeated the offer. Though there was no actual agreement between plaintiff and de-fendant, the former consented to go to rehear-sal with a new company, which was in the pro-cess of formation. At this time he received a communication from J. C. Williamson, Ltd., and the result of the interview with the Sydney manager was an appointment with the Julius Knight company, which was then in Melbourne. He went to Melbourne, and saw Mr. Darbyshire, manager for J. C. William-son, Ltd., there, and had a part allotted to him in the company. A day or two later he had another conversation with Mr. Darby-shire, the result of which was he lost his engagement with the Julius Knight company, because it was alleged that at the time he entered into the agreement he was actually under contract with the defendant. Mr. Car-roll, who was in the employ of defendant, was in Melbourne at the time, and plaintiff called on him. Mr. Carroll said that he had only obeyed instructions in telling William-son's manager that plaintiff was under con-tract to the defendant. A few days later de-fendant arrived in Melbourne, and plaintiff asked him for an explanation of the pro-ceedings. The conversation became heated, and defendant concluded by saying, "If you won't work for me I'll take jolly good care you won't work for Williamson. I'll boycott you throughout the profession."

The case stands part heard.