The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIOAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 10, 1865.

POLICE INTEL LIGENCE,--This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SYSTEMATIC UTTERERS OF COUNTERFEIT COIN.—Two
women, named Belinda Thomas and Eliza Brown, were
charged before Mr. Knox'with uttering connterfeit coin.
The prisoners went into the shop of Mr. Wilson, stay
maker, of Carnbourne-street, and having selected a pair of
stay; tendered a counterfeit half-crown. On being told
it was bad they left the shop leaving the coin behind.
They then went to the shop of Mr. Saul, a furniture broker,
in Castle-street, and while tendering a second bad half-
crown, Mr. Willson's assistant and Rough, 310 A, entered,
and the assistant gave them into custody. They were
then taken to the Vine-street police-station, and while
there Sergeant Leech, 14 C, observing that Thomas ap-
peared to be very uneasy, and was trying to secrete some-
thing she had in her hand, seized her hand and took from
it a third bad half-crown, and in the station in an old
glove were found 13 more bad half-crowns--evidently
thrown where they were found by one of the prisoners
Subsequently Sergeant Leech went to the lodgings of the
prisoners, and he there found the fellow glove to the one
picked up with the coins in the station. There was another
charge against the prisoners for uttering a counterfeit half-
crown at the shop of Mr. Weems, of Phoenix-street, Cla-
rendon-square.

The prisoners were remanded, that the Mint authorities
might be communicated with.
ROBBERY BY A SOLDIER.—William Taylor, a private of
the Grenadier Guards, was charged before Mr. Knox with
stealing three breast-pins, the property of a licensed
hawker of jewellery named Knott.
The prosecutor went with a box of jewellery into the
Royal Standard public-house, Piccadilly, and while serv-
ing a customer the prisoner took the three pins up, as the
prosecutor supposed, to look at them. Having finished
serving his customer, the prosecutor asked the prisoner for
the pins, which the prosecutor observed him putting up his
sleeve. The prisoner denied all knowledge of the pins,
and directly after lifted up his foot and asked the prosecu-
tor if a pin on the ground belonged to him. This was one
of the pins, and had no doubt been dropped by the prisoner
after he had denied having any of them. The prosecutor
then observed another pin up the prisoner's sleeve, and
this the prisoner also dropped, at the same time stating
that if the prosecutor accused him he would " knock his
brains out." The prosecutor then sent for a constable,
who saw the prisoner try to pass a third pin, and one of
those the prosecutor missed, to, another soldier who had
just entered the house. The prisoner was then taken into
custody.

In answer to Mr. Knox, tho prisoner's sergeant said he
had been in the regiment five or six years, and did not
bear a good character.

Remanded.

THIRD EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, 7 o'CLocK.

The Music Halls and the Theatres.

LAMBETH POLICE COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Charles Morton, the managing director of the Oxford
and Canterbury Hall Company, appeared this day before
the Hon. Mr. Norton, to answer a summons taken out
against him by Mr. F. B. Chatterton, one of the lessees of
Drury Lane Theatre, charging him with having permitted
stage representations at the Canterbury Hall.
Mr. Besley said he appeared there on behalf of Mr. F
B. Chatterton, one of the lessees of the Theatre Royal,
Drury-lane, as the representative of Mr. Mapleson,
Mr. Pechter, Mr. E. T. Smith, and Mr. Horace Wigan, to
make out a complaint against Mr. Morton for having permit-
ted the performance of stage plays at the Canterbury Hall,
he not having a license from the Lord Chamberlain to do so.
It had been said that the lessees of the theatres enjoyed a
monopoly, but he said that was the error, as the regulations
of the Lord Chamberlain had certain restrictions, which
certainly did away with such an impression. The theatre
managers were under the control of a public officer, and
they were also under certain heavy restrictions with re-
spect to the plays represented, while the music halls, who
could only be reached once a year, were under no such re-
strictions. The Act of Parliament upon which he
relied in order to prove a case against Mr. Morton was the
6th and 7th Vic., c. 68, sec. 28, and he might as well say
that the representation of which he complained was the
entertainment produced last Christmas. It was entitled
" Hodge Podge ; or Butterfly Christmas Party, a Shadow
Sketch," by W. F. Vandervell. The characters, or phan-
toms, as they were called, were seven in number. First,
there was Hodge Podge, a young man who works for a
farmer ; Squire Crabtree, his friend ; Blue-eyed Susan,
Butterfly, and Papillon. There were also three witches
and fairies. The whole of the entertainment was
published in a little book, which was delivered
to any person who visited the place. There
were songs and dialogues embraced in it, and
at the end of the entertainment a transformation ensues,
then follows the comic business, and the whole concludes
with a very brilliant display of fireworks. He would put
in the specification of the patent awarded to Messrs.
Dircks and Pepper for the "Ghost" illusion, as it was called,
in order that the magistrate might be enabled to fully
understand his remarks.

Mr. Prentice objected to the specification of Messrs.
Dircks and Pepper being referred to, as the illusion at the
Canterbury Hall was not produced according to the inven-
tion of those gentlemen.

Mr. Besley said he thought he should bo able to show
that it was very similar. The illusion was produced by
reflection, the real representation was placed below the
stage.

Mr. Arnold asked whether the mirror was on the upper
or lower stage ?

Mr. Besley said the reflection was. transferred from
the mirror, which was below the glass on the upper stage ;
but, he must say, he thought it was but a quibble on the
part of the defendant, when they alleged that " Hodge
Podge" was not a stage play, because it was only produced
by shadows. He should call before the magistrate evidence
to prove that the entertainment was a stage play within the
meaning of the Act, and also to prove that the Canterbury
Hall was fitted up with a stage front, borders, and
stage accessories, and when the witnesses had given their
evidence he felt sure he should have made out a case against
the defendant, and to call for the infliction of penalties
mentioned in the act.
The following were then called :

Mr. Frederick B. Chattertcn, who said, I am in partner-
ship with Mr. Edmund Falconer as lessee of Drury Lane
Theatre. On the 13th of January I went to the Canter-
bury Hall. I went into the stalls; I saw there were foot-
lights, a proscenium, a green curtain, and a drop scene.
There were musical instruments at the side. The persons
in the Hall were smoking and drinking. Before "Hodge
Podge" began the footlights were extinguished. That is
to increase the effect of the illusion. The performance
commenced about a quarter to 11 and lasted 35 minutes.
Before the curtain was raised the ordinary pantomime
overture was played. Upon the curtain being raised I
saw scenery and borders, and also three figures on the
stage.

Mr. Prentice—Three figures ?

Mr. Chatterton—Three shadows, then. I thought they
were figures at first, but when I saw them exit I found
they were shadows.
Examination continued -I had one of the little books
already referred to. All the other characters were shadows
then as far as I know. I saw all the shadows, or, as they
are called in the pamphlet, "phantoms of the brain." The
words of the book were distinctly spoken by living charac-
ters, but I am not quite aware how the spectral illusion is
produced. There was a transformation at the end of the
entertainment, and then I saw the comic business. The
back scene changed. It was a sylvan scene. I recollect it
changing to a brick wall. In the burlesque opening there
was a plot, or, speaking professionally, I should ,say the
burlesque opening of a pantomime was performed. I did
not wait until the finish.

Cross-examined by Mr. Prentico.—l went to see whether

" Hodge Podge" was a pantomime. There was no living
person on the stage. The music was perfect as far as I
could judge. I saw the scene change, but not in the
manner of theatres. I saw the large inverted sheet of
glass, but I cannot say how it was placed. I ,thought the
gas was placed at the back of the stage. There was no
living person on the stage during the time. I saw a sylvan
scene changed to a brick wall.

Mr. Prentice—But that was not on the stage. It was in
,he glass, you know.

Mr. Chatterton—lt seemed to me as if it was done on the
stage. We have had Pepper's Ghost at Drury-lane
Theatre, but I don't know what was the contrivance at
the Canterbury Hall. I was perfectly of opinion that if
"Hodge Podge" was performed on the stage, it was
a stage play. I have been twice to the Canterbury Hall
Tavern. I am under the impression that everything
was reflected in a looking-glass. I consider a magic
lantern used to illustrate stage effects a stage play. If, ac-
cording to my opinion, Shakspere's soliloquy of " The
Seven Ages of Man" was illustrated by the magic lantern, it
would be a stage play. I consider " Punch and Judy "
a stage play ; it was the origin of all plays.
Re-examined—l saw the movements of the lips of the
performers. The voice seemed to come from the stage—
the thing was so cleverly done. I have seen nothing like
it at the Polytechnic.

Mr. Horace Wigan said—l am the lessee of the Olympic
Theatre. I went on the 30th December to the Canterbury
Hall. I saw the representation of " Hodge Podge." I saw
the shadows, and also the head of one of the actors, and
the properties above the level of the trench in which the
actors were below. I presume that the occasion on which
I saw the head of the performer it was occasioned by the
actor being more agile than the others, and jumping too high.
I saw Hodge Podge. It was, according to my opinion, a
regular play. It had a plot. [The witness here related the
whole of the story of " Hodge Podge.") I considered it
a regular pantomime—a very good one, and very well done.
I was not on the level on the occasion I have referred to.
I was above, so I could see below.

Mr. Besley—You consider it a stage play?
Witness—Oh yes ; certainly.
Mr. Prentice—That's got to be proved yet.
Cross-examined—I have been but once to the Canter-
bury Hall. I went to see whether the entertainment was
an infringement of the Act of Parliament. I don't think
there was a living person on tho stage. I don't say there
was an actual change of scenery on the stage, but it was
changed below, and reflected on to glass which was visible.
I should say it occurred on the stage below and reproduced
on the upper stage. I will not swear there was a glass
on the stage at all.

Mr. Prentice—Then it must have kept very clean. I
Mr. Norton—Were you there before the performance
began ?

Mr. Wigan—No, it had began when I arrived.
Mr. Norton—You could, if you had been, say whether
you saw scenery.
Mr. Wigan—The whole thing was very perfect. I have
given evidence before in a case.
Mr. Prentice—ls there anything objectionable in the
little book ?
Mr. Wigan—No, only it is objectionable to me to have
it played at all at the Canterbury .

Cross-examination continued—l don't think there was
any person on the stage. What I saw could not have been
produced without actors below. When I was examined