The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-19 00:00:00

THE BRIGHTON AQUARIUM CASE.

The special case of "Warner v. the Brighton Aquarium
Company" was argued on Friday in last week, at the Sit-
tings in Banco of the Court of Exchequer, before the Lord
Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell, Cleasby, and Amphlett.
The Solicitor-General (with whom was Mr. C. Bowen)
argued for the plaintiff; Mr. Manisty, Q.C. (with whom was
Mr. 11.111llan), argued for the defendants.
The following report of the case is from The Times :

Mr. Bosanquet, at the commencement of the case,
informed their Lordships that he appeared for another
plaintiff who was blinging an action in the Queen's
Bench. He desired to state that that was a bond fide
cause.

Baron Bramwell: You are, then, amicus curice.
Mr. Bosanquet : That is my legal position.
The Solicitor-General said the question in the case
was whether the Aquarium was a house of amusement
or entertainment within the meaning of the statute 21,
George 111. c. 49. The Aquarium had been opened
on Sunday for the pnblic on payment of a shilling ; the
number of persons employed there on week-days was
10, on Sundays six. On Sunday, June 6, it had been
open from 11.30 a.m. till 9.30 p.m. On previous
Sundays a band of music had performed there, and
there were newspapers, &c., lying about for the visitors
to read. The act in question had been passed by
reason of Carlisle-house, which corresponded to the
modern Vauxhall or Cremorne Gardens. He contended
that that Act embraced this case however hard it
rnig'lt be. It was a prominent fact that on Sunday
the Aquarium was opened for amusement to the
public by payment. and he used the word "amuse-
ment " because otherwise why did the people go?
The Act applied to any house anywhere, and was not
merely confined to London or Westminster. There
was also a penalty for advertising the place. This
question had already been decided by the Queen's
Bench. The only difference between the facts of that
case and the present was that there was no music and
no newspapers.

The Lord Chief Baron: The band played only
sacred music?
The Solicitor-General: I think so, my Lord. The
newspapers might be read by payment of a shilling.
Now, there are in the Aquarium the statues in the
hall and the fishes, a skeleton of the devil-fish, and a
variety of other things affording amusement of a
delightful sort. Besides these there were gigantic
crabs in the tanks, which lay on their banks, the
octopus, &c. When the fish were fed could any-
thing be more amusing than the conger-eel? All
this was seen by folks by way of amusement. It
might be said it was for scientific research, and
that would be true in part, just as people might
be found who went there for the purposes of
natural history. But the public went there for
amusement only. Then as to the restaurant, entitled
to be open on Sundays at prescribed hours, that ad-
joined the vestibule; and refreshments could be got
there. Was it therefore, less entertainment within
the Act because there was no sacred music and no
newspapers? Was it not drawing it rather fine to
draw the line at a newspaper? Was it not more
interesting to the bulk of the people to watch fish—
for example, the two seals "Jack" and "Harry," fol-
lowing their keeper like two dogs than to read the
Saturday Review The Tames, or even the Observer?
'1 he Lord Chief Baron: There are two words,
" entertainment " and "amusement," Mr. Solicitor.
I observe you rely chiefly on the latter.
The Solicitor-General I use both words, my Lord.
The Lord Chief Baron: A theatre is clearly a place
of entertainment.

The Solicitor-General : Suppose the exhibition had
been " Pepper's Ghost ? "
The Lord Chief Baron: A place may be a place of
amusement which is not a place of entertainment.
The Solicitor-General, referring to a case just de-
cided in the Queen's Bench, said that it was held under
the Excise Act that the words "building for refresh-
ment, resort, and entertainment" extended to any
accommodation and reception. How did that case
differ from this? In both cases a shilling was paid for
refreshment; in that case, for coffee and cigars. The
Solicitor-General then referred again to the special
case in the Queen's Bench. The judgment there was
given with evident reluctance for the plaintiff, but
there was no choice.

The Lord Chief Baron pointed to the words "house
or other place," and said that it might be a question
whether this was such a " place " umder the Act.
Would public gardens, for instance, in which there
were tanks for fish, and flowers in houses or beds, be a
" place " within the Act.

Baron Bramwell: Say Hampton Court-gardens,
where they happily make no charge.
The Solicitor-General: I should say it would be a
public place. But lam nut driven to that.
Baron Bramwell: Suppose the fish and flowers were
omitted?

The Solicitor-General : The Zoological Gardens
would come under the Act if people were ohliged to
pay.
The Lord Chief Baron: I excluded the Zoological
Gardens because there wild beasts also are exhibited.
Therefore I put it simply, a garden with flowers and ,
fishes.

The Solicitor-General: I should say it would be a