The Express.
London, England, 1865-05-04 00:00:00

iter

JILW TATELLIGIINCJI
COURT OF OOMXON PLEAS.—MAT 3.
Illthiss fa Beintn—fliefor• Lord Chid Justice Brie, sad
Jostles* ROM Kenna& sad "MO
DAT, APPELLANT. O. WM= TIM TOUJOD, SZMOSDISS.—
TIM "(MOST" PIMMIKLIIO/11 OS Tel MIA
This was an appeal from • magletrats's dahlias.
Mr. Serleare Hayes, for the appellant, said that this was
the ghost me, and he had the borrow to appear for the
&est, ls
gatt_igh inst ter.) It wannot • mama ghost, it was •
(reasughter)—and be bad DO doubt
etinthe internee of the ghost had been well tared for, for
be perceived that the apsoikation had bean drawn by his
friend Mr. Hiodmaroh. T MD stated that ths appellant
was • licensed victualler at Birmingham, sad he had been
surommed by the reepoodeut, who was the proprietor of •
liotheed theatre, before the stipendiary magistrate, open an
information that he had, on the 24th November last, on-
lawfully kept • place for the public performance of siege
plays, without proper authority, and against the provisionsof
the act of the 6 and 7 Vle. It was proved that the appellant
kept • large concert hall, and was licensed under the 73rd
ma of the Birmingham Improvement Act to have music,
danelm, wad other public eatertainniente of the like kind, In
the hall The hall had a gallery round three sides of it,
and the fourth side presented the appearance of • regular
theatre, with a raised stage, proscenium, curtaia, footlights,
Ind wine and drop MIDIS ; and every person 'uterine the
ball paid 6d., and received la exchange • refreshment ticket
to the amount of 3d. le the rear of the curtain there was
the representation of a storm at NS, and of what appeared
to be • man, but was in reality only the reflection of • man,
swimming. When the steno had subsided, a person la the
character of a Greek prism came urn the stage and spoke
some lines referring to the shipwreck which be had escaped
I from. A dialogue, which was of • comparatively unimpor-
tantobanoter,wessfterwards mined oar bet wee. two persons,
me of whom only appeared bodily upon the stage. The
reflections of several other persons, kiagt, princes, and
others, were shown, and a dialogue took place which com-
posed a set drama, with a reviler plot of love, oourtabip,
and matrimony. The peculiarity of the representation,
however, was that, with the exception of two persons„ the
dialogue between whom was wholly subordinate, sone of the
characters were at any time bodily upon the stage ; they
were in • chamber below, andaddressing eseh other there,
whilst their persons were reflected in a mirror, in such en
ingenious warner that they bad Um appoiranos of being
bodily upon the stags. The statute under which the ap-
pellant was summosed before the magistrate forbad the
performance of any "stage play" in any place sot licensed
by the Lord Chamberlaio, sad the haterpeitadois dame
said that the term "stage play " shall Maude any
tragedy, comedy, farce, opera, burletta, interlude, melo-
drama, pantomime, or other mitertallimmit of the
stage, or my part thereof." It was admitted that
the appellant had no theatre license, bat it was contended
that the performance camewithia his license for public
music, dancing, "and other entertainment. of the like kind."
There was • great deal of meek. dancing, and singing in the
performance in clangors. The magistrate was of opinion
that the entertainment was esesetielly different from that
which the appellant's lioness:tended to ; and that the de-
fence was therefore without weight. It was contended
further that it was not an entertainment of the stage, as
only one of the characters could be seen bodily upon the
stage at any one time, the others being represented by the
optical illusion. The magistrate, however. held that, IS
having been proved that there was a regular plot and a
dialogue, it was not essential that the Mors should be
bodily upon the stage ; sad he convicted the appellant
in • nominal penalty. The learned serimat said
that there were only two reported eases which be need
refer the court to : one of them was that of Gamy v.
Limit in 5 Term Report.. In this case lord Kenyon held
that dancing was an entertainment of the stage,
though afterwards, in the Queen v. Andy, he revoked that
opinioo. end held that "tumbling" was sot an entertainment
of the stage. The performance sow in question was •
peculiar and startling novelty, which was not domed of
when the act was primed, and therefore should not be is-
chided within the mope of the statute, which was • moil
one. The legislature which passed the act contemplated
living Mors upon the stage, and knew nothing of shadows
merely of form, but of substance—(laughter) -and indeed,
taking their place. Now the was • clear distinction, not
here the substance of the enthrtMoment was the shadow, if
he might be allowed the expression. (iteriewed laughter.)
It was like the entertainment that Prospero spoke of
in the Tempest—" the Melees fabric of • vision"
—and it might be said the actors " are spirits, and
have melted into air." No doubt ghosts were
well known upon the stage : there were the ghost of
Hamlet's father, the ghost of Julius Cmar, who appeared
to Brunie, and many others ; bat in this particular se.
tertaioroent the ghosts were the principals and the living
persons the mere memories. What the people went to me
was not • drama, but an optical illusion. The theatrical ros-
Dagen wanted to Include everything within their department.
They acted on the maxim of their great master, " All the
world's • stage." They agreed with him in saying, " And all
the men and women merely players.' But they went far-
ther, and wanted to take in all the ghosts as well. (Laugh-
ter.) He contended that the performsce was essentially
different from a dramatic entertainment.
Mr. Justice Smith—Yon have • ear drama.
Mr. &reale Hayes wished that the magistrate bad set
out the dialogue. because he felt convinced that it would
have been thought to be unimportant.
Mr. Justice Ryles asked how it would have been if the
actors were automatons.
Mr. Serjaint Hayes considered that such a performance
would not he • stage play. The mere amoworice of • theatre
were unimportant. There was preaching on Sundays
in some of the minor theatres, but it could not be said they
were theatrical entertaiuments became there were • stage,
footlights, and other things.
Mr. Justice Ryles—Were poem plastiques within the
statute ?
Mr. Serjeant Hayes—The exhibitors had never been
prosecuted, and he should nay that they were not. For
three reasons he submitted that ghosts ought not to be
=beet to the penalties of the sot.
Mr. :Field, Q.C.. for the respondent, referred to the
terms of various Ma of parliament, and also to the cases
which had been quoted. The Court of Queen's Bench, he
added, had held the singing of Mr. Russell's mg, " The
ship on lire," to be • dramatic entertainment. The law
pee to the Lord Chamberlain • censorship over plays, the
object being to prevent them being made the vehicle of
imcnond and improper seetimeate, and the entertainment
in question was within the raischief, for such an exhibition
might be made the vehicle of impropriety. la this ease
there was • regular plot sad dialogue, and the only diffe-
rence was that the actors naked to one another is • chamber
below, instead of on the steps. It was about the same as
if the audience sat with their backs to the stage mad saw
the reflection of the actors in glass. As to this kind of en-
tertainment not being known when the act passed, the same
might be said of photography, yet the courts bad held pho-
tography used for copying picture, to be piracy within the
Copyright Act.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that the conviction
should be affirmed. He was anxious not to prevent the
use of this extremely ingenious invention, or to deprive per-
sons of the mitertainmeut they derived therefrom ; but the
law required that the representation of any entertainment
of the stage should oot be given without the Chamberlain's
license ; and he thought that the entertainment given by
the appellant was within the statute. The entertainment
bad all the memories of the stage—ourtains and lights,
and there were actors on the stage at the beginning ; there
were the words of • regular drama pronounced by living
actors, and the images of these living actors were seen by
the audience. Under the circumstances he was unable to
my that the magistrate was wrong.
Mr. Justice Bytes said that nothing could be larger than
the words of the statute, and in his opinion this case fell
within them. He did not mean to say that the mere pro-
jection of images by glass, without dialogue or pantomimic
action, would be illegal ; but that question was not before
them. Here there ware dialogue, action, and the accessories
of the stage ; and this being so he could not say that the
magistrate was wrong.
Judgment for the respondent.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
NAT &
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SICK 9. BICE.

Dr. Spiuks sod Mr. liorgan Howard for the petitioner.
The pude. were married is 1836 et Calcutta, where Mr.
Biek wu • merchant. There was cos ebild. le 1861 the
respondent returned to Engbiod on seeount of her health.
In September, 1863, her husband came to pay her • visit,
but on the 10th of Doolllllb4/ she we. waned. No infer.
mateso mold be obtained as to her paramour. She had
been supplied with 3401. by her husband to a year sod ten
months, so that she bad not 'offered from soy want of
'funds, sod she bad always lived happily with her buabaad
when she was with him.
Decree nisi.

ices o. 8061.
Yr. Stamm for the petitions&
The respondent, as attoroeyb clerk, at Bartok married
his wife about nine years ago, and there had been three
children. After living with bee about font years sad a half
be deserted her sod committed bigamy, for which ha had
bees convicted at Gloucester Amine, sod senteused to sir
mouths' bard Isbour. A highly comical most-horde *pants
from the respudent to his victim w read, in whisk he
leareedly dimoureed os the plulosapb of crime and punk-
mart, liarszeued those who had sl him to that tai-
Wiwi where the actions of men were weighed, ad attri-
buted anythiag that imbed doe mire to the weakness sad
frailty of human astute. Be signed it " Your broken-
hearted but devoted husband."
Deane nisi, with coeds.
lid 70ILDA TAIDIMIS) V. MI AND DAVIS.
Mr. leder wick fat the petit:loser; Dr. Dame, Q. 0., sod
Kr. Yatehiti for tint rempoodeat. Ttillireal said be
bid previously been imerueted by the reepowdest, bat eines
her busload had he.. admitted to us as a pauper she bed
no mums wherewith to appear.
Prange Bice used for • divorce from Frances Bits ea
amuse of km adultery with Gimp Addles Devise, of
In3rd Dragoon Guards.
In 1838 the pettsiour, who wee then segialter is WNW
street, Pell-sail, married • wide", rued White. They
lived together is Buffelltminet end at, Bislused till 1881,
whoa the reopoudeat Oft Lodes, as she aid, to pay
• visit to Brighton, but Wheal it was alleged that
ohs had swill eses M Watide& ad 114 aahsiYri