ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUCHANAN AND THE LAW
Robert Buchanan found himself in court on several occasions during his life. In some cases he was the plaintiff, in others the defendant, the cause of some, an interested bystander in others. The earliest appearance I‘ve come across so far was as a witness for the prosecution in a trial of 22nd April, 1868 in Glasgow, concerning the collision of a steamer with a fishing smack. However since Buchanan’s part in that trial was minimal, and since his dissatisfaction with the verdict led him to write a letter to the Glasgow Herald, I thought it made more sense to put it in the Letters to the Press section.
The ‘Fleshly School’ Libel Action (Buchanan v. Taylor) 1876. Lucy Brandon (Court of Bankruptcy: May and Mansell) 1882. Alone in London (Roselle v. Conover, Roselle v. Buchanan) 1887. Sophia (Buchanan v. Conservative Newspaper Company) 1888. Lady Gladys (Buchanan v. Langtry) 1890. Heredity (Greenberg v. Buchanan) 1891. House Painting 1894. The Charlatan (Stubington v. Buchanan) 1894. Robert Buchanan’s Bankruptcy 1894. Dick Sheridan (French v. Martyn) 1894-5. Harriett Jay’s Bankruptcy 1895. The Final Bankruptcy 1901. A Showman’s Courtship 1891. ? _____
The Fleshly School Libel Action
In November 1875 The Examiner published a review of an anonymous poem called Jonas Fisher, implying that it was the work of Robert Buchanan. The following month, a letter from Algernon Charles Swinburne (but signed ‘Thomas Maitland’) was published and Buchanan accused the proprietor of The Examiner, Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. of libel. The trial took place at the end of June, 1876 and lasted for three days. Since this was the ‘second stage’ of the Fleshly School controversy, all the material (newspaper court reports and comments) is available in that section of the site: The Fleshly School Controversy: The Fleshly School Libel Action _____
The Times (26 October, 1882 - p.3) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. The bankrupts, Charles May and Richard Mansell, were described as of Buckingham-street, Strand, theatrical managers, formerly of the Imperial Theatre, Westminster. They had been adjudicated upon the petition of Mr. Robert Buchanan, dramatic author, a judgment creditor for £76, due to him for the use of the play Lucy Brandon. This was a first meeting for the proof of debts and the appointment of a trustee, but, in the absence of a quorum of creditors, an adjournment for a week became necessary. No statement of affairs has yet been filed by the bankrupts. ___
The Standard (26 October, 1882 - p.6) BANKRUPTCY COURT. IN RE MAY AND MANSELL.—This was a first meeting, the Bankrupts being described as of Buckingham-street, Strand, theatrical managers, formerly of the Imperial Theatre, Westminster. The adjudication was made upon the petition of Mr. Robert Buchanan, of Paternoster-row, dramatic author, a creditor for 76l. 12s. 9d. upon a judgment, the consideration for which was the use by the Bankrupts of a play called Lucy Brandon.—The statutory accounts were not filed, and owing to the absence of a quorum of creditors, a trustee could not be appointed, the meeting being adjourned for a week. ___
The Times (2 November, 1882 - p.4) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. An adjourned first meeting for the proof of debts and the appointment of trustee was held under an adjudication against Messrs. Charles May and Richard Mansell, theatrical managers, of 7, Buckingham- street, Strand, formerly of the Imperial Theatre, Westminster. They had been adjudicated upon the petition of Mr. Robert Buchanan, dramatic author, a judgment creditor for £76. At a formal meeting an adjournment became necessary, in consequence of a quorum of creditors not being in attendance; but proofs of debt amounting to £1,285 being now admitted, the creditors appointed Mr. A. C. Harper, accountant, trustee of the estate, with a committee of inspection, Messrs. Nye and Greenwood being the solicitors to the proceedings. ___
The Era (4 November, 1882) A Word of Explanation. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA. Sir,—In your report of the bankruptcy of Messrs Mansell and May, late managers of the Imperial Theatre, you adopt the mistake made by the newspapers—viz., that they were adjudicated for the amount of fees due to me for performances of Lucy Brandon; and one of your contemporaries, with characteristic generosity, assumes that the bankruptcy of the managers is a consequence of these performances. Permit me to say, therefore, that the £76 12s. 9d., the amount for which these gentlemen were adjudicated, was simply a moiety of private money lent in cash previous to the production of the play; that the fate of the management had nothing to do with that production; that in addition to the losses in hard cash, I have also been mulcted in large sums on guarantees given by me to several tradesmen and to Captain Hobson, of the Aquarium; and all this in connection with a speculation in which I had no share, save as the author of a piece accepted for performance. Those who know me are aware how little disposed I am to be exacting in money matters; those who do not know me may be assured that the action I have taken was absolutely necessary, and in no sense arbitrary. A few weeks after the closing of the Imperial the same managers found money enough to take the Opera Comique, to pay down a large sum for rent in advance, and to produce a comic opera. Verb. sap. I am, &c., _____
Next: Alone In London
|
|
|
|
|
|
|