The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-24 00:00:00

~G~~I era

PA PE

\,....-;,,..-.,__ {
Dramatic Entertainments in Muiro:liaals ,
..._
At the Bow-street Police-court yesterday, Mr Edward
Weston, proprietor of the Holborn Music Hall, appeared
before Mr Vaughan to answer a summons charging him
with having represented certain dramatic performances at ,
that establishment without being licensed to produce stage
plays, •
Mr 11. T. Roberts appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Stanley for the defence.
Mr Roberts stated that he appeared for Mr Horace Wigan,
lessee of the Olympic Theatre, the nominal prosecutor ; but
Mr Wigan wished it to be distinctly understood that ha
was not putting himself forward invidiously in this matter,
but was acting on the behalf and with the concurrence of
the profession as a body, and virtually he (Mr Roberts)
appeared for the managers of nine London theatres, v:z.,
Mr Mapleston, Her Majesty's Theatre—the Opera Cern -
pany, Covent-garden Theatre—Messrs Falconer and Cbat •
terton, Theatre Royal. Drury-lane—M. Feebler, Theatre
Royal Lyceum—.Mr Webster. Theatre Royal Adelphi— Mr
Bucketone, Theatre Royal niyrnarket—iqr E T. Smith
Theatre Royal Astley's—Mr H. Vs'ig,an (the prosecutor),
,
Theatre Royal Olympic—and Mr Cave, Marylebene
Theatre. It was necessary that som , gent Taman el...calla act
on behalf of the entire bads, and it had .basn arrarged l
that Mr Wigan should be the gentleman. who should tale
that duty upon himself. The practice of ic. arc-Lent:az at
music halls certain performances et a d
character had come to such a pitch that it was fdi -
necessary that the managers 'of theatres should interfere to
put a stop to such proceeding ;for the protection of their _ '
own interests. There was no vindictive feeling on the part
of Mr Wigan or the other proprietors against Mr Weston
personally. On the contrary, they admitted that an esta-
blishment could not be better conducted, with the excep-
tion of this particular proceeding, which was an infringe.
ment of the law. The entertainment complained of was
what is commonly called a "duologue," and it had been
decided that a " duologue'' was a dramatic entertain-
ment. Indeed, he believed it might be applied to stage
dancing, though he certainly did not think that his
clients would act advise,lly in curtailing public amusement
by insisting upon that point. But when it came to this,
that plays, such as operettas, burlesques, and the like were
produced at these music halls, it was time Ica them to de-
fend their own rights and interests. In this case, as he
understood that Mr Weston would plead guilty, there was
no desire to press for a penalty, or, at all events, for more
than a nominal penalty. Mr Weston, was a highiy resaect-
able man, and had only been singled out for prosecution in
the first instance on the ground that he was the last who
had camtnitted an infraction of the law. He must observe,
however, that in all future cases, after this warning, the
prosecutors would press for substantial penalties. lie must
mention also that though these proceedings were taken
under a clause which only allowed £2O as the maximum
penalty, there was another clause under which all persons
concerned were liable to penalties of £5O. He should also
observe that if these entertainments were carried on in de-
fiance of the law, that fact would have its weight with the
licensing magistrates. The present proceedings were taken
merely for the sake of example.
Mr Stanley said he appeared for the defence as solicitor
to the Metropolitan Music Hall Proprietors' Association.
He was rather surprised that the managers should have
thought it worth their while to take these proceedings, as
the appliances at the command of the music-hall proprietors
would not enable them to compete with the theatres.
Under the circumstances he had recommended Mr Weston
not to be one of the two parties who were necessary to a
quarrel, but to submit to a conviction, At the same time
he did not wish to admit, as a matter of precedent, that the
entertainment in question was a theatrical representation.
It would he loft to some other music hall proprietor to fight
that question.

ecidedty thesirica 1

A to ba

Mr Vaughan said the act of parliament was a very shin-
gent one, and properly so. Mr Weston ought to remember
that he was liable to a penalty of £2O for every day the
entertainment was repeated. As there was no desire to press
the matter, ho should only impose—for the purpose of
showing that the law o ;uld not be broken with impunity—
the nominal penalty of 20s and costs.