Articles on the Sulzer-Biachi Opera Slander Suits

“court of common pleas—chambers.

Before Justice Daly.

Annie Wilson vs. Henrietta Sulzer.—This was one of the cases tried in the Marine Court last term, known as ‘The Opera Slander Suits.’ The plaintiff recovered a judgment against Signorita Sulzer for amount of $250, in an action for damages for using slanderous language to and in regard to plaintiff. Similar suits were instituted against Signor Biachi and Dr. Reisenbergher, which will be tried for the second time at the above term of the Marine Court. In the present case execution was issued against the property of Signorita Sulzer and returned unsatisfied. An execution was then issued against her person, when this motion was made to set aside the proceedings and discharge the defendant, on the ground that she was a married woman.

The affidavit of Madame Biachi, formerly Signorita Sulzer, was read, showing that when the judgement was recovered she was a single woman; but that on the 21st day of Feburary last she was united in marriage to Signor Hannibal Biachi, of the Maretzek Opera Troupe, and her counsel claimed that she was exempt from arrest by reason of her marriage.

In reply counsel for plaintiff read the affidavit of Annie Wilson, setting forth that the defendant’s salary as an opera-singer is $6,000 per year, payable every fortnight in advance; that the execution against her property was returned unsatisfied on the 19th of Feburary, 1864, and that execution against her person was issued immediately afterward.

Mr. Osborn E. Bright, for the plaintiff, contended that the judgment was obtained while Miss Sulzer was unmarried; the execution against her property was returned unsatisfied before her marriage, but, on hearing that it was returned, she instantly married. That as execution against the person could be enforced in all cases in which the party might have been arrested under Sec. 179 of the Code, the marriage of the defendant did not protect her from arrest after judgment. It was also contended that the contract with Maretzek by which she was in receipt of $6,000 was her separate estate, and that a married woman having separate estate could be arrested in an action for slander. His Honor took the papers and reserved his decision.

Osborn E. Bright for the plaintiff; Benjamin Galbraith for the defendant.”

“court of common pleas—chambers.

Before Judge Daly.

Annie Wilson vs. Henrietta Sulzer.—The further hearing of this case upon the defendant’s motion to set aside the execution against her person, on the ground that she is now a married woman having separate estate, came up yesterday morning. This, it will be remembered, is the somewhat famous opera slander suit, the particulars of which, as developed on the trial, have already appeared in the Times.

Mr. Bright, on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that formerly a married woman could not be discharged for any cause except collusion between plaintiff and her husband to keep her in custody. At length the practice arose of discharging her, in the discretion of the court, when she had no separate estate; but the cases showed that this discretion was exercised only where the judgment was against both husband and wife, and a decision of Chief Baron Pollock was cited to show that it could not be exercised when the judgment was against the wife alone. It was further argued that the reason for the discharge of a married woman, who had no separate estate vested in trustees, was her inability to acquire property to satisfy the debt. This disability is removed by our statues, and the defendant is enabled to earn by her services $6,000 per annum, to which she alone is entitled. It was, however, immaterial whether she in fact earns anything; having the legal capacity to do business and acquire property she is responsible to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it was contended that the circumstances of the alleged cancelation of the defendant’s contract with Maretzek created the presumption that she had willfully attempted to deprive herself of the means of satisfying the debt. Defendant’s counsel cited authorities to show that a married woman is absolutely entitled to discharge when taken on a ca sa. He also suggested that Miss Sulzer was singing for charitable objects as the explanation of her appearance since the cancelation of her contract, but it was proven to the satisfaction of the court that she appeared in opera several times during the week.

Judge Daly, in rendering his decision, questioned the distinction made by Baron Pollock, limiting the cases in which the Court might exercise its discretion. He, however, held that in view of defendant’s means of acquiring property, in the present instance she should not be discharged.

Plaintiff may enter an order during defendant’s motion, with $10 costs.

Osborn E. Bright, for plaintiff; Ben. Galbraith, for defendant."

“It appears that Signora Biachi, neé Sulzer, does not feel inclined to acquiesce in the decision of an American court of justice. In the case of Wilson agt. Sulzer, already reported in these columns, the jury brought in a verdict of $250 for plaintiff, and according to this decision the Sulzer was ordered to pay this sum to the Wilson.

But while the case was going, the fair contralto married Mephistopheles Alfonso Biachi, the basso of ‘Maretzek’s’ company, and now, through her counsel, puts in a plea that, as a married woman, she possesses no separate estate, and therefore cannot be called upon to pay the two hundred and fifty dollars. To be sure, it is proven that her salary as an opera singer is six thousand dollars a year—considerably more than most of our law-abiding citizens—but yet the lady is firm in her determination not to pay the penalty decreed by the law.

Equally adamantine is the Wilson to have ‘her ducats.’ An execution has therefore been issued against Sulzer, and it is stated that she may be arrested to-day—which would be bad for the opera-goers who may wish to see her Siebel in ‘Faust,’ but would be a good lesson to foreigners unacquainted with our system of jurisprudence, as teaching them that in New-York it is the custom to obey the law, even if it does cost a wealthy and accomplished contralto two hundred and fifty dollars. The counsel of Madame Biachi has of course technical grounds for the action taken by the lady, but the court yesterday refused to recognise [sic] them as valid, and denied the motion to discharge the order of arrest.”

“It now appears that upon the denial of Signora Sulzer-Biachi’s motion to set aside the Wilson’s execution against her person, the sheriff forthwith convinced the reluctant singer that she must either go with him or pay the judgment, together with sundry items of costs and fees—in all something over three hundred dollars. The latter alternative was chosen.

The suits against Signor Biachi and Esculpias Regensburger, wherein the juries had disagreed, remain to be tried over again. Not fancying the ordeal of the courts, these defendants sought a settlement. The plaintiff consented to forgive and forget in consideration of a trifling sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, and a written recantation of those injurious words that had so perturbed the Wilsonian heart. The money was paid, the ‘cheerful retraction’ was made, and the curtain falls upon the defendants no longer defending, and upon the plaintiff no longer plaintive.”

“That $100 Greenback, or the Irrepressible Chambermaid’ was revived in the Court of Common Pleas last week, and created a great deal of interest for an appreciative audience. You know that Biachi, the man who plays the devil in Faust, at the Academy, is alleged to have been relieved of a $100 greenback. Annie Wilson, who was chambermaid where the devil boarded, was suspected of conniving at the escape of the century. A row ensued, M’lle. Sulzer siding with Biachi, and Annie Wilson going in for herself. During the melee, Annie was called a theif, and Sulzer spilled some melted fat on Wilson. Biachi, Sulzer, and a Doctor Somebody were arrested, and tried for defamation of character; and of the three, the jury could only agree about M’lle. Sulzer, and she was sentenced to pay two hundred dollars; a day or two afterwards she was married to Biachi, and when the ‘myrmidons of law’ came to seize upon her things to satisfy Annie and the judgment, she put in the plea that she had merged herself in Biachi, and therefore had no existence as far as a separate estate was concerned, or something to that effect; but the Court couldn’t see it, because she was under engagement to Maretzek, and was getting her little old $6,000 a year, and therefore was possessed of things in her own right. Guess the opera people will make some other motion, to stave off the draft. Better pay up at once, good Mr. Devil and his cara sposa [bone of his bone, etc—Ed.] and let the thing drop; its doing you much mischief, and will hurt you still more if kept before the public, for we are supposed to sympathise with the weaker vessel, right or wrong. We don’t know whose funeral the Devil, and the Doctor, and Sulzer would sooner attend than that of Annie Wilson.”