The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

BAIL COUST.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
EX PARTE GARDNER-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Sir F. Thessiger applied for a rule to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against the
printer of the Morning Advertiser, for a libel published
in that journal, refle4ng on the character and conduct
of a gentleman named Gardner, who was in the em-
ployment of the Customs as a collector. The alleged
libel was contained in an article which appeared in
the Morning Advertiser on the 28th of October
last, commenting somewhat severely on the Board
of Customs for having instituted prosecutions against
the London and other Dock Companys for cer-
tain infringements of the custom laws, and it con-
sisted of a statement, which the affidavits set out was
intended to apply to Mr. Gardner, that these prosecu-
tions were instigated by a collector of one of the
northern ports, whose only object was some pecuniary
gain, or his own advancement, it being insinuated that
he thought he might thus assist the department of the
Customs which he knew was rotten to the core.

Mr. Gardner, in his affidavit, distinctly denied this,
and asserted that he had nothing whatever to do with
the proceedings, and had received no reward, either
directly or indirectly, in consequence of the actions
having been brought.
The Learned Judge, after looking, intimated that he
would grant a rule.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHE UER.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HALL V. GREEN.

Mr. M. Chambers applied in this case, which was
tried before Mr. Baron Platt, yesterday, and in which
a verdict was found for the defendant, for a rule to
shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside,
and a new trial granted. The action was brought to
recover one penalty of 1001. for keeping a public-room
for music and other entertainment, against the provi-
sions of the 25th of George 11., chap. 36, sec 2, which
was entitled, an act for better preventing thefts and
robberies, for regulating places of public entertainment,
and for punishing persons for keeping disorderly
houses. No attempt was made to attack the character
of the witnesses who came to prove the plaintiff's case,
but everything they stated was in substance taken to be
true, so that the verdict of the jury was clearly not
founded on a disbelief of witnesses. The room in ques-
tion was at Evans's Grand Hotel in King-street, Covent-
garden. It was clearly proved that there was no license
for music or public entertainment in the room.
Mr. Baron. Platt—The only question was, whether
the room was kept for music.
Mr. M. Chambers—Precisely so. It was proved that
on several occasions by witnesses who had gone there,
that the room was open from half-past eight in the
evening until late at night, or early in the morning,
every day in the week, except Sunday.;, It held between
200 and 300. At the end there was a piano, with a gen-
tleman presiding at it. During the evening there were
songs, choruses, glees, and madrigals ; and sometimes
the party sang in character, and sometimes out of cha-
racter—the expression "in character," meaning dressed
up, and "out of character," that the vocalists ap-
peared simply as ladies and gentlemen in their
every-day attire. (Laughter.) There were tables
along the room at which the persons who frequented the
place were supplied with supper, brandy and water, or
any other liquor they might call for. No money was
taken at the doors, but any individual who had refresh-
ments could enter and listen to the songs and music,
and witness what was going on. Bills were laid on the
tables, containing the names of the performers, and de-
scribing the nature of the entertainments every evening.
Mr. Baron Alderson observed, that the question with
regard to the entertainments resolved itself into this, which
was the principal, which the accessory—the song or the
supper? (Laughter.)

Mr. M. Chambers submitted that if the statute were
repealed that would be the question, but not otherwise.
The learned judge (Mr. Baron Platt) had left the case
to the jury in that way, but he contended that in doing
so he had committed a mistake. In the course
of the trial some curious questions were asked
—first, whether they were respectable people who
went to the room, to which the witnesses replied yes ;
next, whether the magistrates did not hold their meet-
ings at Evans's Hotel ? to which an affirmative answer
was given ; and it was thereupon insinuated that the
entertainments must be according to law, otherwise the
magistrates would not hold their meetings in a disorderly
house.

Mr. Baron Platt said the question which he put to
the jury was one of fact—viz., for what purpose the
room was used ? Whether it was kept for public music
or singing, or simply as a refreshment room, or whether
it was kept for both objects ?

Mr. M. Chambers—Your lordship did not say that.
Mr. Baron Platt—l distinctly left the case in that
way to the jury ?
Mr. M. Chambers--I beg pardon, but I must con-
tradict your lordship. If your lordship had so left it
there must have been a failure on the part of the jury.
Mr. Baron Platt—l assure you, Mr. Chambers, Iso
put the question, and the jury found that the room
was
of public refreshment—the ordi-
nary ahotel-keeper—and not for music ?
Mr.kept
M. forChambers—The
businesshthe
of supply
ni
'
vice of your lordship's sum-
ming up, if I may be allowed to use the expression, was
asking the jury to consider which was the principal and
which the accessory, for I conceive that misled them in
deliberating upon their verdict.
Mr. Baron Martin believed that the practice of having
music in rooms frequented by the public, and making no
charge at the doors, the proprietors simply paying them-
selves out of the sum paid for refreshments, was almost
universal.

Mr. M. Chambers considered it was a violation of the
law.

Mr. Baron Martin said there was no objection to the
plaintiff bringing another action.
Mr. M. Chambers wished, however, to press this case
particularly on the attention of the court, because if so
loose a construction of the act was sanctioned the neces-
sity of applying for a license to the magistrates,
as required by the statute, would be altogether
avoided ; and he was satisfied if the law was laid
down properly by the judge, the plaintiff would
get a verdict, notwithstanding the prejudice which
existed in the minds of most persons against common
informers suing for penalties.
Mr. Baron Martin doubted very much whether the
plaintiff would get a verdict in his favour even if the
case was submitted to another jury.
The Court was satisfied there ought to be no rule. It
had been the practice for many years not to grant new
trials in penal cases, or on the ground of the verdict
being against evidence, and it saw no reason to depart
from it now. The court thought that the learned judge
had properly left the case to the jury, and, therefore, a
rule could not be given for misdirection.
Rule refused.

A LAMP FOR INDIA, to burn the oil used in that cli-
mate, has recently been patented by Messrs. Sedgwick
and Dawson, of Piccadilly. An ingenious contrivance
on the top of the shade prevents any effect upon the
flame by the action of the punkah, and the air by
which the flame is fed is equally protected from inter-
ruption ; the most perfect combustion, and consequently
all absence of smoke, is the result. This invention, so
long needed for the Oriental dominions, appears in every
respect worthy of this extensive firm, the ability of which
to impart great brilliancy and effect of light to the salons
of the regal and wealthy aristocracy, without dazzling, or
a too great obtrusiveness of the means employed, has
long been recognised. The discovery some while since
of the diaphanous principle of reflection, and its applica-
tion to lamps, is due to these gentlemen, and widely at-
tested to by the journals devoted to matters of science.
Mena'.