LadyGladys

Lady Gladys
by Robert Buchanan.
[London: Opera Comique. 7 May, 1894. Copyright performance.]
New York: Madison Square Theatre. 28 May to 9 June, 1894.

Buchanan wrote Lady Gladys in 1888 for Lillie Langtry, but she rejected it, resulting in a court case in November, 1890. As far as I know the play never received a British production.




	The Era (30 September, 1893 - p.10) A NEW play by Mr Robert Buchanan is always something of an event, and it is to be regretted that London is not to have the first “sampling” of his Lady Gladys. This is a comedy-drama, or society drama, or whatever is the proper title, which, as we understand, was secured for her native States by Miss Minnie Seligman during a recent visit to Europe. Miss Seligman did not go away empty handed, nor, it is to be hoped, did she leave our native dramatists in this condition, for, besides Mr Buchanan’s play, she bought Mr F. C. Philips’s Margaret Byng, produced some time ago by Miss Estelle Burney at a matinée; and, that the playwrights might not have it all their own way, she secured at least one English actor to support her. This was Mr T. B. Thalberg, who will play the principal male part in Lady Gladys, on a tour which is to commence on the 23d of next month. ___ The Morning Post (3 October, 1893 - p.3) Miss Minnie Seligman, an American lady lately on a visit to this country, is said to have purchased from Mr. Robert Buchanan, for representation in her own country, his new comedy named “Lady Gladys,” in which Mr. T. B. Thalberg will appear as the hero. ___ The Chicago Tribune (9 May, 1894 - p.7) GENERAL NEWS FROM NEW YORK. Mrs. Seligman-Cutting to Sue Manager Miner for Breach of Contract. NEW YORK, May 8.—[Special.]—Mrs. Minnie Seligman-Cutting has retained Lawyer Maurice Untermeyer to bring suit for her against Manager Henry C. Miner for $10,000 damages for alleged breach of contract. Mrs. Cutting was to have produced “Lady Gladys” at Miner’s Newark Theater last night. At the last moment the actress and manager of the theater, Col. Morton, had a dispute as to the terms of the contract and she refused to go on. It was reported today that Mrs. Cutting had begun negotiations with the Rosenfield Bros. and would probably produce the play at the Fifth Avenue Theater next week. ___ The Era (12 May, 1894 - p.10) A COPYRIGHT performance was given on Monday afternoon at the Opera Comique, of a new play, by Mr Robert Buchanan, entitled Lady Gladys, and we understand that on the evening of the same day the piece was to be produced in the United States, at Miner’s Newark Theatre, with Miss Minnie Seligman-Cutting—who was Miss Minnie Seligman before she became Mrs Cutting—in the principal part. ___ The New York Clipper (12 May, 1894 - p.6) NEW JERSEY. Newark.—From present indications it will be hard to find the profits in business for the last few weeks of the season. At Miner’s “The Old Homestead” pleased a fair share of the general business of last week. Owing to a disagreement between Mrs. Minnie Seligman-Cutting and the management of Miner’s the production of “Lady Gladys,” Robert Buchanan’s new play, did not take place May 7. Instead, after waiting a long time, the large audience was informed by Col. W. M. Morton, resident manager of the theatre, that there would he no performance, and that all tickets would be repurchased if presented. Col. Morton said: “Mrs. Seligman-Cutting has acted in a very unjustifiable manner. She waited until the last moment, and then refused to play unless certain clauses were added to her contract. The contract was made with me, and Mrs Seligman-Cutting agreed to act up to it if certain documents were produced. I showed them to her and she then repudiated her contract. I do not yet know what action I shall take about the affair. I shall see my lawyer in the morning.” Frank Murray, Mrs. Seligman-Cutting’s manager, gives the following account of the trouble: “We had a contract, made with Mr. Miner, through his representative, Col. Morton, which provided that the first $800 taken should go to Mrs. Seligman-Cutting, the next $1,500 to Mr. Miner, and the remaining receipts be divided equally, both parties taking fifty per cent. This contract was dated April 27, was signed W. M. Morton, per H. C. Miner, and was read and approved by Edward Miner, acting manager of the Fifth Avenue Theatre, New York. About a week ago Mr. Minor saw Mrs. Seligman-Cutting and informed her that this contract was not valid, Col. Morton having no authority to agree to such terms. Mrs. Seligman-Cutting told him she had entered into the contract in good faith, and should expect him to act up to its provisions. We then began to hear from Col. Morton, who wrote in a piteous strain, saying that Mr. Miner was not inclined to ratify the contract, that he personally was likely to lose his position, and begging Mrs. Seligman-Cutting to agree to some changes in the arrangements. As Col. Morton said he was sure of the financial success of the piece, Mrs Seligman-Cutting proposed that he lease the theatre for a week from Mr. Miner and play “Lady Gladys” upon his own responsibility, stipulating, however, that Col. Morton should produce a receipt for the week’s rent and also a properly executed cancellation of her contract with Mr. Miner. These conditions, though accepted by Col. Morton, were not carried out. He informed us that he had rented the theatre, but he produced no proof. When the company arrived in Newark, 8, they found all the dressing rooms locked, with the costumes inside. Mrs. Seligman-Cutting had been informed that unless she signed the new contract with Col. Morton she would not be allowed to go on with the representation. As Col. Morton did not produce any receipt for the rent of the theatre, simply showing a few lines which stated that Mr. Miner had leased the theatre to him for a week, Mrs. Seligman-Cutting refused to do anything save under the conditions contained in her original contract with Mr. Miner. Mrs. Seligman-Cutting will certainly bring a suit against the management for breach of contract and for recovery of her costumes, which were retained by Col. Morton.” Next week, Primrose & West’s Minstrels. ___ The New York Times (27 May, 1894) THE WEEK AT THE THEATRES DRAMATIC SEASON IS NOW NEAR ITS END Only Minnie Seligman’s Play This Week—No Further Announcements and the Theatres Gradually Closing Their Doors—“Variety,” in All Its Forms, Remains to Stimulate the Public Mind, And the Roof Gardens Will Soon Be Opened. The theatre managers are beginning their vacations, and the theatrical gossip afloat pertains mostly to projected enterprises of next season. A column or so could be filled with the promises of new plays and new actors to come before this public in the Winter of 1894-5. but the promise of Spring is rarely fulfilled in the Fall in dramatic matters. Many changes will be made in published programmes before the theatres again open their doors. One encouraging fact is that the next season cannot possibly be duller or less productive than this has been. There was no novelty in the bills of last week, and the only new thing of this week will be a play by the irate Robert Buchanan, put forward, after much fuss, by Minnie Seligman. _____ “Lady Gladys” at Last. After two unsuccessful attempts to present “Lady Gladys,” which have resulted in managerial quarrels and lawsuits, Minnie Seligman-Cutting is at last to be seen in that play. It will have its first production on any stage at the Madison Square Theatre to-morrow night. The play was originally written for Mrs. Langtry, but was not produced. It remained in the author’s hands until Mrs. Cutting recently purchased the rights for its production, not only in this country, but in England. The Earl of Doone and his daughter, Lady Gladys Hope, have lost their estate, Penroan, through the foreclosure of an old mortgage which has been secured, for motives of revenge, by their enemy, Sir Gilbert Vane. Sir Gilbert has never forgiven the Earl for being his successful rival for the hand of Gladys’s mother, and he has plotted to ruin father and daughter for years. Lady Gladys’s pet dog wanders on the estate of Penroan, and Sir Gilbert shoots it. For this, Lady Gladys, in the presence of his guests, strikes Sir Gilbert across the face with a riding whip, thus adding to his motives for revenge. The Earl of Doone dies, and Lady Gladys changes her name to Miss Gascoigne. Under this name she captivates and marries Edgar Vane, Sir Gilbert’s son, receiving as her wedding gift her old home Penroan, which Sir Gilbert has presented to his son. When Sir Gilbert recognizes in his son’s wife the daughter of his old enemy, the storm breaks and the newly-married pair separate. A reconciliation is effected when Lady Gladys discovers that her husband had for years been secretly assisting her father. Miss Seligman, of course, plays the part of Lady Gladys. In her support will be John Glendenning, George Fawcett, H. St. Maur, Herbert Ayling, Redfield Clarke, Lillian Lawrence, Clara Braithwaite, and Maggie Holloway. ___ The New York Times (29 May, 1894) MINNIE SELIGMAN AS LADY GLADYS. _____ Her Admirable Acting in Buchanan’s Play at the Madison Square. Minnie Seligman produced at the Madison Square Theatre, last night, a four-act play by indefatigable Robert Buchanan, called “Lady Gladys.” It is just such a play as Buchanan always writes, with an involved and impossible plot, dialogue that is generally both agreeable and effective, and a few situations that are undeniably strong. Lady Gladys is a young Englishwoman, whose lordly father is deprived of his ancestral estates through the machinations of his life-long enemy, Sir Gilbert Vane. Moreover, Sir Gilbert shoots her dog. Whereupon Lady Gladys strikes Sir Gilbert with a riding whip. Reduced to poverty, Lady Gladys, for no earthly reason, assumes an alias, and, with her identity thus concealed, marries Sir Gilbert’s son, Edgar, first exacting from him. as a marriage portion, the title to her ancestral home, which has been transferred from father to son. Lady Gladys and her unsuspecting husband repair to the ancient domain, and then the woman orders her deadly enemy, and his son as well, to leave the house—in a pouring rainstorm, too. The next day, however, Lady Gladys learns that her ill-treated husband was the unknown benefactor of her father for many years, and as she is desperately in love with him, the play ends happily. The main incidents of this piece, including the marriage of the woman under a bogus name, with the connivance of reputable persons, including a clergyman, are so preposterous that a sustained illusion is impossible. But, in spite of this, the play is not uninteresting, and may serve Miss Seligman well on the dreary but profitable “road” next season. A long run for “Lady Gladys” in New-York would be out of the question. Miss Seligman’s acting last night was admirable in every respect. She has improved wonderfully in a few years, and the force and naturalness of her expression of the conflicting moods of the strange heroine could be equaled by few contemporary actresses, English or American. She has not only youth, beauty, and a sufficiency of physical strength for her portion, but an uncommonly large measure of dramatic aptitude, as well, and she has lately formed a distinct style. She has overcome her old tendency to overact, and keeps within the “modesty of nature” in spite of her dramatist, to whom that phrase seems to be unknown. The delicacy and subtlety of her treatment of the scenes with her lover in Act II. surpassed any previous work she had done, and if, on the whole, her acting seemed less real in the great climax at the end of Act III., the wild improbability of the fable at that point may be urged in her favor. There was certainly picturesqueness in her motions, there, and a note of true pathos in the colloquy with her husband. Miss Seligman is an actress who is much talked of, but little appreciated. She deserves cordial recognition, for her natural talent is of a high order, and her acquired skill and industry are now commensurate with it. She was supported last night in a frequently commonplace but reasonably capable way, and the play was suitably staged. The dignity and unfailing earnestness of John Glendinning were serviceable in several important scenes, James K. Hackett played his part with good intelligence, and Arthur Lawrence was acceptable as the gouty enemy of Lady Gladys. Edgar Vane . . . . . . . John Glendinning Rev. Jack Harland . . . . . . James K. Hackett Sir Gilbert Vane . . . . . . Arthur Lawrence Earl of Doone . . . . . . Henry St. Maur Major Fitzherbert . . . . . . Herbert Ayling Mr. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . H. D. Byers Count di Wimeraux . . . . . Marcus Moriarity Dick Penzance . . . . . . Redfield Clarke John Rudd . . . . . . Edward Gavin Lady Dolly Fitzherbert . . . . . Lillian Lawrence Mrs. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . Clara Braithwaite Martha Rudd . . . . . . Maggie Holloway Mrs. Baxter . . . . . . Lizzie Morgan Lady Gladys Hope . . . . . Minnie Seligman ___ New-York Daily Tribune (29 May, 1894 - p.6) THE DRAMA. _____ “LADY GLADYS” IN THE MADISON SQUARE Robert Buchanan is not a conciliatory person. He has taken part in so many quarrels, and has fallen foul of so many English penmen that it cannot be doubted that his temper is singularly short and his utterance customarily explosive. Just now he is at swords’ points with a well-known British contributor to newspapers, and the two have had many hard things to say of each other. Mr. Buchanan has been so impatient to take offence, for these many years, and he has been so headstrong and violent in his controversies, that he has stirred up the most pungent prejudices against himself on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of his plays, many of his verses, many of his writings of all sorts, have been received with the swiftest of sneers and the severest of scorn and censure. And yet Robert Buchanan is not altogether outside the pale. He has intellect enough to entitle his writings and utterances to careful attention. His favorite deliverance may be Scotch invective of the most acrid flavor, and he may use muriatic acid in preference to ink, but he has put in words now and then some ideas not so insignificant as to be idly ignored. He has recently been waging a turbulent warfare against an English essayist on the drama, who not long ago indulged in fervent eulogy of a brute and a blackguard, the prize-fighter Corbett. Mr. Buchanan may be wrong in a great number of things, he may be all awry in a large variety of matters, but if he takes the ground that prize-fighting and prize-fighters are utterly contemptible and detestable at any and all times, no matter how man English newspaper men may use their pens in praise of the pests of the prize-ring, he will have with him in that regard the cordial support of every honorable and high-minded man, woman and child in this country or any other. Robert Buchanan is the author of the play of “Lady Gladys” which was seen in the Madison Square Theatre last evening. The first act of this play ends with a strong and impressive climax. The second and third acts are well constructed, powerful and effective. But the last act is comparatively clumsy and inept. In a few words the story is of the just and righteous vengeance of an English woman, Lady Gladys Hope, whose father has been robbed of house and lands by the villany of his enemy, the inheritor of a family feud. This wicked foe is Sir Gilbert Vane. Lady Gladys suffers with her stricken and wretched father and breathes the spirit of revenge from his poverty and distress, and also from his prayers that dire retribution may overtake his adversary. Her father dies, and his final injunctions urge his high-spirited and vehement daughter never to forgive the family that has brought ruin upon them. Lady Gladys goes away from the ancestral Devonshire estate of which her father and she have been defrauded. She travels to distant climes. At Monte Carlo—fit home of treasons, stratagems and spoils—she appears in the second act under an assumed name as the companion of a friend and sympathizer, Lady Dolly Fitzgerald. Strange to say, the tables of Monte Carlo are not exhibited, and the roulette wheel is not even referred to. So far as present recollection serves, this is the only play in which a scene is represented in Monte Carlo without any allusion to gambling. Edgar Vane, son and heir of the dastardly and pitiless Sir Gilbert Vane, falls in love with Lady Gladys, not knowing that she is the woman whose father was so grievously wronged by his father. They are married, and the young husband gives to his wife the ancestral estate which had been taken from her father, and bestowed upon him by his father. The married pair go to England, and Lady Gladys Hope, now Edgar Vane’s wife, reveals her true self, and casts into outer darkness her husband’s father, Sir Gilbert Vane, who has been living at Penarvon, the estate which he filched from the father of Lady Gladys. Edgar Vane, the son, chooses to go forth and wail and gnash his teeth with his father. But in the last act all is reconciliation. Sir Gilbert Vane pleads forgiveness, and she discovers that her husband is a far nobler man than she had thought him. So the clouds are dispersed. This play was produced by Miss Minnie Seligman and an able company. The first, second and third acts were received with genuine enthusiasm by the audience in the Madison Square Theatre. But the last act was looked upon with less favor. Still it is certain that the play interested every hearer, and, on the whole, its reception was distinctly favorable. Miss Seligman was uneven in her acting. At times she was strangely distraught and seemed to be disturbed by outside influences not relative to the play. But in the scenes of storm and stress and struggle and passion, her control of the audience was manifest, and her acting was praiseworthy. John Glendinning as Edgar Vane was sufficient to the occasion and something more. He was manly and earnest and touched the right note. Miss Lillian Lawrence as Lady Dolly Fitzherbert played her part with delicacy, refinement, vivacity and charm. Herbert Ayling was ingeniously amusing as Major Fitzherbert and exhibited rare aptness and versatility. It was an excellent piece of work on his part. Other members of the company, including especially Miss Maggie Holloway and James K. Hackett, gratified and interested the audience. Here is the cast: Edgar Vane . . . . . . . John Glendinning Rev. Jack Harland . . . . . . James K. Hackett Sir Gilbert Vane . . . . . . Arthur Lawrence Earl of Doone . . . . . . Henry St. Maur Major Fitzherbert . . . . . . Herbert Ayling Mr. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . H. D. Byers Count di Wimeraux . . . . . Marcus Moriarity Dick Penzance . . . . . . Redfield Clarke John Rudd . . . . . . Edward Gavin Lady Dolly Fitzherbert . . . . . Miss Lillian Lawrence Mrs. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . Miss Clara Braithwaite Martha Rudd . . . . . . Miss Maggie Holloway Mrs. Baxter . . . . . . Miss Lizzie Morgan Lady Gladys Hope . . . . . Miss Minnie Seligman ___ The New York Dramatic Mirror (2 June, 1894) Madison Square.—Lady Gladys. Play in four acts by Robert Buchanan. produced May 28. Edgar Vane . . . . . . . John Glendinning Rev. Jack Harland . . . . . . James K. Hackett Sir Gilbert Vane . . . . . . Arthur Lawrence Earl of Doone . . . . . . Henry St. Maur Major Fitzherbert . . . . . . Herbert Ayling Mr. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . Mr. H. D. Byers Count di Wimeraux . . . . . Marcus Moriarity Dick Penzance . . . . . . Redfield Clarke John Rudd . . . . . . Edward Gavin Lady Dolly Fitzherbert . . . . . Lillian Lawrence Mrs. R. Mackworth Pope . . . . Clara Braithwaite Lady Gladys Hope . . . . . Minnie Seligman Lady Gladys, after several attempts to place herself in evidence before the American public, finally came to time last evening at the Madison Square Theatre. The story of the play might appeal to a more exacting class of the reading public if presented in the form of a novel, but it did not prove very thrilling as enacted by Minnie Seligman and her companion players. The Earl of Doone and his daughter, Lady Gladys Hope, have unexpectedly lost their estate, Penaroan, through the foreclosure of an old mortgage, which has been acquired by their enemy, Sir Gilbert Vane. This enmity arose from the fact that the Earl had supplanted Sir Gilbert in the affections of the lady who afterwards became the mother of Lady Gladys. While on a shooting expedition, Sir Gilbert intentionally shoots a dog belonging to lady Gladys. The young woman is worked up to such an extent over the shooting of her dog, that she strikes Sir Gilbert across the face with her riding whip. The Earl, unable to bear up under his misfortunes, dies of a broken heart. Lady Gladys becomes the companion of her friend, Lady Dolly Fitzherbert, and changes her name to Miss Gascoigne. Matters grow interesting, when Edgar Vane, Sir Gilbert’s son, falls in love with Lady Gladys, who conceals her identity, and consents to marry him. Edgar receives Penaroan as a wedding present, and when the newly wedded couple return home, and Sir Gilbert recognizes in his son’s wife the daughter of his bitterest enemy, the plot thickens, so to speak, while the band plays a plaintive wail, indicating that the honeymoon is over, and that henceforth Edgar and Gladys must meet as strangers. In the last act husband and wife are living apart. Finally a reconciliation is brought about. The villain is not half as black as he was painted. Sir Gilbert had accepted certain sums of money, believing that they were paid to him in cancelation of an old debt. In reality they had been contributed anonymously by Sir Gilbert. And the band plays “Auld Lang Syne.” Minnie Seligman tried hard to find opportunities for dramatic effectiveness in the role of Lady Gladys, and she may be said to have succeeded in a measure. She fully understands the histrionic light and shade. Still she would do well to rid herself of the inartistic mannerism of speaking so low in unemotional passages that she can scarcely be heard at the back of the auditorium. John Glendinning gave a polished and telling personation of Edgar Vane. Arthur Lawrence resorted too much to unnecessary theatrical emphasis to be entirely satisfactory as Sir Gilbert Vane. Herbert Ayling gave an amusing character sketch of Major Fitzherbert, but Harry St. Maur was rather uninteresting as the Earl of Doone. James K. Hackett was realistic as a muscular parson. In addition to its conventionality, some of the scenes betray such a lack of technical skill that one might accredit them to a mere novice in playwriting if the name of Robert Buchanan were not attached to the piece as its author. Lillian Lawrence depicted Lady Dolly Fitzherbert with charming vivacity, but Clara Braithwaite was not especially happy in her portraiture of Mrs. R. Mackworth Pope, a lady in search of interesting types for her forthcoming novel. The scenery was commendable and the performance evinced thorough rehearsal. ___ The New York Times (3 June, 1894) THE WEEK AT THE THEATRES _____ MINNIE SELIGMAN’S ACTING IN BUCHANAN’S “LADY GLADYS.” _____ The Play Saved from Utter Failure by Her Tact and Skill—Another View of “The Passing Show”—Mr. De Angelis and Miss Stephenson—Beginning of the Roof-Garden Season—Summer Night Recreation New- Yorkers Owe to Rudolph Aronson. Minnie Seligman’s acting in Robert Buchanan’s impossible play, called “Lady Gladys,” at the Madison Square Theatre, is so well thought out and so skillful in execution that it ought to have appreciation quite apart from the material with which it is associated. The love scene of Act II., for example, is played by Miss Seligman with truly remarkable delicacy and tact, with every possible emotion of the woman clearly expressed. That it still leaves the scene unsatisfactory is not Miss Seligman’s fault, but her dramatist’s. The whole scheme of the play is false. How differently Sardou, from whom Mr. Buchanan has taken this situation, treats the famous meeting of Loris and the Muscovite siren in the second act of “Fédora”! There the audience is never left for a moment in doubt of the design of the heroine to entrap her victim, or of her feelings, for her growing passion for Loris and her hatred of herself for entertaining it are plainly indicated. But Mr. Buchanan’s Fédora is a feeble creature. She does not know her own mind. The audience is led to believe that she loves Edgar, and that she has some idea, also, of marrying him for the purpose of avenging herself upon his father. But she does not even devise the plan of her vengeance, and has no part of it. The comic persons of the play induce Edgar to settle the estate upon Gladys as a marriage portion, and they have no sinister design. The love scene is as commonplace as possible—an ardent, earnest man, and a timid girl, who does not quite know what to say. It is true enough that it ought to have more passion and more complexity, but Mr. Buchanan is responsible for its deficiency, and if Miss Seligman had attempted to strengthen the episode, she would have been accused of overacting. She preferred to act it as naturally as possible, and she convinced good judges of the actor’s art of her superior skill and fine artistic feeling in this passage as well as in the stronger, and even less real, series of scenes that lead to the climax of Act III. Miss Seligman’s acting has saved the play from absolute failure and made it reasonably entertaining. It will be continued at the Madison Square Theatre another week. ___ The World (New York) (3 June, 1894)

   Robert Buchanan has written many plays. Some have been absolute failures, some have gained substantial success, but none has achieved greatness. “Lady Gladys,” from his prolific pen, produced for the first time on any stage at Hoyt’s Madison Square Theatre last Monday evening by Minnie Seligman-Cutting, is neither a failure nor a success. It lies midway between those extremes. It is possible that, with careful revision, it may be made an acceptable play, but it can never be made a great one.
   For a man who has written so long and so much for the stage, Mr. Buchanan is singularly deficient in stagecraft. He has spoiled many a good theme by poor treatment. He has absolutely no sense of humor, and his method of drawing character is peculiarly crude and immature. Not a part in “Lady Gladys” has substance. All are mere outlines, lay figures dependent upon their delineators for soul and personality. It is not surprising, therefore, that the scenes in which they figure lack conviction. If the characters themselves are wanting in sincerity their joys and troubles must create but little interest.
   The story of “Lady Gladys,” a priori, is conventional. Its romance is superficial and theatrical, of a kind much affected by writers of cheap novels. In spite of the exposition, which is unnaturally diffuse and lacking in ingenuity, the climax of the first act is impressive; after that the author loses his grasp of his theme and movement, cogency and consistency become lost in a mass of words.
   In the title role Mrs. Cutting does some excellent acting. Her methods are reposeful and discreet, and her readings are marked by capital variety. Her transitions are sometimes a trifle abrupt, but her comedy is spontaneous and her emotional and dramatic moments are moving and forceful. Arthur Lawrence plays a hard-hearted baronet with a fine show of intelligence and artistic appreciation, and John Glendinning, as the hero, and James K. Hackett, as the young clergyman, are both manly and earnest. Miss Clara Braithwaite makes considerable out of a tenuous comedy role.
   “Lady Gladys” has drawn well during the past week, and will be continued until further notice.

___

The Graphic (16 June, 1894)

Mr. Robert Buchanan’s Lady Gladys, a drama in four acts, originally written, it is said, for Mrs. Langtry, but declined by that lady, has been brought out at the MADISON SQUARE Theatre, in New York. Its heroine is the only daughter of a poor Earl, who has been turned out of his ancestral home by Sir Gilbert Vane, a parvenu, who pitilessly forecloses under a mortgage, and crowns his merciless conduct by shooting Lady Gladys’s dog, who, probably unaware of the change of ownership, has ventured to trespass on the new proprietor’s property. Upon this Lady Gladys cuts Vane across the face with her riding whip. Thereupon this Earl’s daughter engages herself as a lady’s companion, goes abroad, and there captivates Vane’s eldest son, whom she consents to marry, on condition that the old estates are settled upon her. When she returns home she orders Sir Gilbert to leave the house, and when her husband determines to go with his father, she locks him out. Subsequently the husband is stricken with fever, and is nursed by his wife, who takes him again to her heart, and as Sir Gilbert grows repentant of his harshness, and particularly of his unkindness in killing the dog, the play comes to a happy end. The piece is said to be brilliantly mounted and well acted, particularly by Miss Seligman as the heroine, whose gown of yellow satin, covered with blue crape, is stated to have elicited “murmurs of astonished admiration by its boldness and elegance.”

___

The Chicago Tribune (14 October, 1897 - p.6)

MISS SELIGMAN SUES MINER.

Wife of Robert Cutting Wants Damages
for an Alleged Breach of Contract.

New York, Oct. 13.—[Special.]—There was begun today in the Supreme Court the trial of the suit of Minnie Seligman Cutting against Henry Clay Miner for $5,000 for breach of contract. She claims that he failed to produce in Newark the play “Lady Gladys,” by Robert Buchanan, on May 27, 1894, as he had agreed to do. The actress and manager were both present, as well as a number of well-known theatrical people of both sexes.
Miss Seligman is the wife of Robert L. Cutting, whose father disinherited him for his marriage to her. He began suit on his father’s death for his share in the estate, but the case was compromised out of court.

___

The New York Clipper (30 October, 1897 - p.4)

Minnie Seligman Cutting received a verdict in the Supreme Court, this city, last week, in her suit against Henry Clay Miner for damages for breach of contract. Mrs. Cutting sued for $5,000, and the jury awarded her $3,445, with interest from May 12, 1894. The contract was to bring out the play “Lady Gladys,” with the plaintiff as the star, at Newark, on a certain division of the receipts. When her company arrived in Newark on May 7, 1894, Mr. Miner or his representatives refused to open the house.

_____

Next: The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown (1895)

Back to the Bibliography or the Plays

Home
Biography
Bibliography

Poetry
Plays
Fiction

Essays
Reviews
Letters

The Fleshly School Controversy
Buchanan and the Press
Buchanan and the Law

The Critical Response
Harriett Jay
Miscellanea

Links
Site Diary
Site Search