The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-19 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSION,—Jam. 18.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Adams, Assistant-Judge, and a
bench of Magistrates, at the Guildhall, Westminster.)
The Court to-day continued hearing appeals.
THOMAS C. GLOVER V. A CONVICTION OF ARNOLD, ESQ.
This was an appeal against a conviction made at the
Westminster Police-Court, under which the appellant
was to pay a fine, or suffer a term of imprisonment, for
keeping an unlicensed theatre, in York-street, West-
minster.

Mr. Parry appeared for the appellant ; Mr. Birnie in
support of the conviction.
It was admitted that the place in question was, to all
intents and purposes, a theatre, and that it was unlicen-
sed. When the case came before Mr. Arnold, a legal
gentleman, who appeared for the defendant, the present
appellant, admitted that his client was the owner of the
premises, and urged that he had some sort of an autho-
rity under a license from the " Queen's trumpeter." The
magistrate held that the authority contended for had no
existence in fact, upon which the advocate for the appel-
lant said he had been misled, and that he would under-
take that the theatrical representations should not be
repeated. Upon this, Mr. Arnold postponed his deci-
sion for a week, and when the parties appeared on the
second occasion, another solicitor represented the defen-
dant, and tendered evidence to show that he was not the
keeper, but that instead he had let it to another person,
although he still occupied apartments in the premises of
which the theatre formed part. The agreement was
tendered as evidence, but Mr. Arnold rejected it, and at
the same time remarked upon such evidence being
brought forward after the admissions of the former day.
The appellant and another were convicted, and such of
the corps as were summoned were discharged, on pro-
mising to abandon their respective engagements.
Mr. Parry now repudiated the admissions made when
the parties were first before the magistrate, and said that
his client would not be bound by any unauthorised state-
ment made at that time. The conviction was for " keep-
ing" this unlicensed theatre—a sort of establishment, the
learned counsel observed, en passant, none condemned
more than be did; but he should prove that the " keeper"
of the theatre was a person of the name of Nelson, to
whom Glover had let it. If he showed this, the Court
would not go beyond the limits of the conviction and say
that because the appellant had disproved one offence he
was guilty of another.
Evidence confirmatory of counsel's statement was then
given.

The AssiFtant-Judge having consulted the Bench, said
the case was a very singulal• one, and the Court had come
t o its decision with very great reluctance—the more so,
a s it was quite clear the appellant was the owner of this
p lace, and had knowingly let it as an unlicensed theatre
—an offence, in point of morals, the same as that of
which he had been convicted by the magistrate. it was
most singular that a different defence was set up now to
that set up before the magistrate, and the Court looked
with a jealous eye upon that defence ; and if it had been
made at first, the appellant would have been convicted
of unlawfully letting, and then there would have been
no escape for him. Under all the circumstance; the
Court unanimously thought the conviction should be
q uashed ; but if the appellant was brought up again for
letting, it would be a very serious matter.
Conviction quashed accordingly.