The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-20 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS

Our Pavia let•ers, dated yesterday, state that it was
considered in the diplomatic circles of that capital, that
the change in the Ottoman Cabinet would facilitate the
arrangement of the Eastern question, on the basis laid
down in London by the representatives of the Five Powers,
on the 14th ult., to which Reschid Pasta, from his deadly
enmity to Mehemet Ali, um strongly opposed.
Lord Ponsonby bad been recalled, or, in other words,
was to quit Constantinople, on leave of absence, never
again to reappear there as Ambassador. The Fir►t Se-
cretary of Lc gation was to be charged, after his Lord-
ship's departure, with the aff.drs of the Embr.ssy.
General 11cgcaud returned to Algiers on the 10th from
his expedition to Mede3h. He had crossed the Pass of
Teniah and reached Medeab without striking a blow ; but
on his Ti turn be had had a serious encounter with the At abs.
The Dnke de Nemours arrived at Algiers on the 10th.
The Chamber of Deputies of Spain resolved, on the
13th. by a unijority of 80 against 44, that the Government
should be invited to submit the Regency question forth-
wi h to the Cortes.— Times.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)
YEWENs V. OSBALDISTON—sADLER'S WELLS THEATRE.
The ATToRNET-GENERAL moved in this case for a rule to
show cause why the verdict for the defendant should not be set
aside and a new trial had. The case was tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Williams at the sittings after last term, and the question
for their Lordships' consideration was, whether a Jury could
by their vedict repeal a penal Act which they disapproved of.
It was an action brought under the statute 10th Geo. 11.,
chap. 28, for representing characters upon the stage of an un-
licensed theatre, and there were counts for causing these re-
presentations to take place on an unlicensed stage. Upon the
law of the case there could be no dispute, for it was settled in
a csse between these very !parties, as reported in 2d 'volume of
Carington and Payne's Reports, p. 67, where the present
plaintiff filed a bill against the defendant for the specific per-
formance of an agreement to enter into partnership in. such a
theatre. The defendant insisted that it was illegal under the
present Act of Parliament, and the Vice-Chancellor, and
afterwards the Lord Chancellor, gave judgment that the
agreement was illegal because the 10th Geo. 11. was still in
forces and no agreement to represent theatrical pieces in such
a theatre was legal, and could not be enforced. There were
two classes of counts, one which related to acting, and the
other causing to be represented; and with regard to the latter
he should say nothing, because, although the evidence was
clear, still there was an inference to be left to the Jury, and it
was for them to come to a decision upon the facts so left to
them. But with regard to the 'other class of counts it was
proved at the time that there was at Sadler's Wells, in the pa-
rish of Clerkenvvell, a theatre vivre plays.were publicly acted
in a regular manner. Among others, Shakspeare's plays,
and there were witnesses who had been present, and followed
the performances from the books. It was proved that the de-
fendant Osbaldiston was the manager, that he gave out the
parts, superintended the rehearsals, and was present on Satur-
days when the actors were paid their weekly salaries. Of all
that there was direct and positive evidence, and unless there
was an inflexible rule that where the Jury actually miscon-
ducted themselves, by finding a verdict in a penal action con-
trary to the evidence and the summing up of the Judge, that
such a verdict must stand, then he humbly submitted that the
Court must grant him a rule. Mr. Osbaldiston was not only
the manager but an actor, and he acted among other characters
those of Macbeth and Virginius, two witnesses having deposed
that they saw him perform these parts from beginning to end
on several nights. It was shown that the public regularly at-
tended the theatre, that play bills had been i=sued, and money
taken, and all the circumstances usually attendant upon these'
performances. Their Lordships would see that in that case
there was direct and positive evidence. It might be said—and
he was ready to allow it elsewhere—that the law upon the sub-
ject was not in a very satisfactory state, and he was glad to find
that a Noble Lord had given notice of his intention to bring
the matter under the consideration of the Legislature. But
that was for the Legislature, and it was the duty of a Jury
merely to enforce the law; and if their Lordships would look
at the 10th Geo. II.; chap. 28, sec. 2, they would find it ex-
pressly enacted, that if any person should without authority or
licence act or represent, iii to he acted or represented, for
hire, gain, or reward, any interlude, tragedy, comedy, or any
part or parts thereof, every person for such offence should
forfeit the sum of fifty pounds, one half to go to the in-
former and the other to the poor of the parish. Now that Act
remained in full force at the present time, and there were se-
veral cases on the subject, Prince v. Chapman, Levi v. Yates
and others. It was admitted that the theatre was was unli-
censed, for even the Lord Chamberlain could not grant a li-
cence unless in a parish where the Sovereign resided. In the
present case, therefore, it was clear that the jury had miscon-
ducted themselves, and unless they were to be vested with an
irresponsible power, he apprehended relief would be afforded
him by their Lordships. It was laid down that in penal cases,
even where there was misdirection of the Judge, the Court
could not interfere to grant a ne rir trial, but where there was
a wilful violation of the law on the part of the jury', the Court
was bound to interfere. In -Brows v. Middleton; 10th East,
it was laid down that in a penal action there should not be a
nevi* trial, even where the verdict was against the evidence, but
that was only in a case where there was a question for the jury, and
w here they drew an inference which might be wrong, but yet
an honest one. In Rolton and Eccleston, 2d Chitty, it was
laid down that the Court could not interfere unless where there
was misconduct on the part of the jury ; but, in the present
case, there was not only misconduct. but gross misconduct, and
the present was the only mode in which they could be reached,
otherwise at would be in the power of a jury in every case to
set the law at defiance.
The COURT, after some deliberation, granted the rule for a
new trial.

EXCHEQUER.- (THIS DAY )

EAST V. JEWELL.

This action was brought under the 6th of Edward VI., to
recover treble value for not setting out tithes. It wat tried
before Lord Denman at the late assizes for Kent, when a ver-
dict passed for the defendant.
THESIGEIt now moved for a rule nisi to set aside the
verdict, and for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection, the
improper reception of evidence, and that it was against the
evidence. The Learned Gentleman said the action was
brought not to recover the treble value ; the plaintiff was only
anxious to settle the question of whether there had been a
composition, as set up by several landowners, or not. The
evidence for the plaintiff made it clear that he was the lessee
of the tithes under the chapter of Rochester, and that he had
been in the habit of receiving 12s. per acre for wheat, and 9s.
for Lent corn, but that it was by special agreement and valua-
tion from year to year. The defence set up Has that from
1937 to 1839 there had been a composition, but in that they
totally failed. However, his Lordship left it to the Jury to say
whether there had been a composition, and if so they ought to
find for the defendant, without, as the same time, calling their
attention to the fact, proved by both sides, that there had been
a yearly valuation, and that in fact the plaintiff had taken just
what he could get. The Jury was a common one, and they
were not, in general, favourable to tithe-owners ; accordingly
they found for the defendant at once, clearly, against the evi-
dence in the case.
Lord ABINGEa—You are entitled to your rule upon the
ground of the verdict being against evidence. Rule nisi
granted.
- -