The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 17.
Biltiap in Banao.—(Before Lord Chief duties Erie, and
Justices Willis, Bytes, and Keating.)
WIGAN V. BTIANCIZ.--THZ 110810 HALLS AND THE THIATBIS.
This matters' mebefore the court upon a case stated for
their lordships' opinion by Mr. Tyrwhitt, the police
megisti ate.
The Lord Chief Justice (after a long consultation with
the other judges) said—After having given this cue the
best attention I can, it appears to me that the question
propounded to me is a question of degree, and more • ques-
tion of fact than • question of law. So far as I can under-
stand the case—but subject to very great doubt whether
I can appreciate the scene that was before the audience at
the Alhambra—and upon the description given by the
worthy magistrate, I rather incline to the opinion that the
decision that he has come to not to convict is the right one.
But I say it is entirely • question of degree, and
where dancing 0011118 to be lawful and becomes
a stage -play, is • definition that I am not
at all prepared to offer. In the wee which has
been quoted, and which was before Lord Kenyon, • doubt
arose as to what would come within the description of •
stsge play, end the legislature appear. to me to have pro-
vided by the 2.5 th George 11. that there should be a themes
of agreeable entertainment fa persons who perhaps could
not afford to attend at the licensed theatres—that there
should be places of public resod where them should be
mimic and dancing, provided the proprietor had •
trate.' license. The defendant has inch • license, anlit
has in literal terms confined his representation to music
and dancing. The point contended for by those who ap.
plied for the conviction of the defendant is that by the
aid of mush and dancing there was snob an approach to
dramatic performance as made it come within the de.
(hakes of stage play. I bate heard an argument
by those who press for • conviction about the interests el
morality in the matter ; but I think that it is sots question
of morality, but • question whether an amusement soak as
the defendant offers in a cheap form should be allowed to
continue. or should be put • atop to, while the same vet of
entertainment should be permitted at theatres, which
would have something like • monopoly in the matter.
Mena and dancing are clearly lawful withiuthe magistrate's
license, and stage plays are clearly unlawful. The
ause set up contains • very minute detail of what
took platy ; there .wore women coming down from racks
mid dancing, and then falling into ranks ; and then another
woman, of • onserior order of dancing, coming down and
dancing alone. If there were nothing more a
re
I
could not say that the defendant had gone out of the sphe
of defines and yet within that of stage plays ; but in ad-
dition, the magistrate says that they come with digging in
their bends, and afterwards with palm leaves, and
that in the course of the eatertalununt owe
steads over the other and represent@ • species of
Performance. That comes very near to a dramatic) per-
formanue, but there is • plans where the line must be drawn,
and in reference to this the magistrate uses tenns of art.
Be says that this is • ballet divertissement in which them
is no consecutive trail, of ideas, bat in which • number of
persons of elegant shapes and motions represented a num-
ber of scenes which were unconnected, dramatically speak-
Ori the other hand, there is • ballet d'ectioa, in
which them is intended to be represented a red dra•
meek story • that may give rise to all manner of
emotions inoidaiMlto tragedy, comedy, faro*, and the like,
escorepanied at the mime time by elegance of foam and
movement, and other matters incidental to
ballet.b I
cannot is the least pretend to have a decisive opiion but
if I am called upon to say as a matter of law that what is
described as a ballet divertissement, and sot coming up to
• ballet d'actioe, is • step play. I am unable to affirm it
as a matter of law. That is the point at which I stop •
I cannot say for certain that this duce at the Alhambra
is a stage play. If I had gone and seen it, or had
had a more graphic description from witnesses, I might have
come to a different conclusion ; but upon this cue I cannot
say that the point at which music and dancing becomes a
stage play has been pasted by the defendant.
lir. Justice Willes said be thought that, as a matter
of fact, the first impression of the magistrate that this was
• stage play was right ; but when the matter was put to
him as • (patios of law be could not say that they aught
to seed the matter back to the magistrate so that he
might convict the defendant.
Mr. Justice Bytes thought that, whenever there was re-
presented upon the stage by dumb show wrests or actions
of human life, the performance came within the statute,
and Due the ae so that the actors performed whilst due-
big. As a matter of fact he should have thought that the
the
performance in question came within this class but
court were of opinion that the question was one of law, and
he could not say that be dissented from the rest of the court
u Mrsha
Justice Keating concurred with the two last-named
Judges.
Judgment for the defendant but without amts.

COURT OF PROBATE
17. AND DIVORCE.
Nov.
(Been the Judge (*lntim)

MUSORTAVI V. lICSOBRAVZ.
Mr. Inderwick, for the petitioner, the wife of a brick.
maker at Wakefield. Hs married her in 1857, and deserted
her in 1861. Since then he had been living in adultery
with Mary Sykes, by whom he had had two children,
besides one by his wife.
Decree nisi, with costs.
-- -

- - -
MAUD V. VAUD.
Dr. Spinks for the petitioner. The oourt had allowed
substituted service, the address of the huebend being tin.
known; but he now came into court and professed that be
had a good deistic& The Judge Ordinary, however, would
not Wow him to interfere.
The marriage was in August, 1863. The petitioner was •
widow in London, and was receiving an iooome of 4001. or
50W. a year. which would go from her if she took • second
kasbairi. The parties had therefore married under a false
name, and the connexion was kept secret for • considerable
time. The petitioner now charged the respondent with
cruelty. Her cone was that be was in the habit of driakiag
and that on three or four occasions he had beaten her. A
number of the respondent's letters were put is confessing
his misconduct ; andj
The court granted the petitioner • judicial aspiration.
TAWCITT V. TAWCATV AND RILL.
Mr. Searle for the petitioner, • printer, in London.
Ho married the respondent in 1851, and in July, 1854, she
took away his furniture and left him. He afterwards
agreed to allow her ss. • week, tilled e found that she was
living in adultery with the 00-responnt.
Decree nisi.

LUXEIDEN r. LUMBDIS.
Mr. Willis for the petitiorier. In 1859 she wu a widow
and kept a milliner'• shop in Manchester ; and in the
February of that veer she wu married to the respondent,
a clerk to a warehouseman in that city. He very soon
began to purses a career of violence sad profligacy ; and
eventually his wife wu obliged to leave him.
Decree nut with costs.