The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-06 00:00:00

BOW-STREET-(THIS DAY.)

Row AT DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—ShortIy after Mr.
TWYFORD entered the Coutt at eleven o'clock, Francis
Bouchier, 16, Cloak-lane, was placed at the bar, charged
with being drunk, causing a disturbance in the theatre,
and assaulting the police in the execution of their duty.
Henry Lockver, A division, stated that during the con-
certs his attention was directed to the dress circle, where
the defendant was violently beating time to the music.
After much remonstrance he attempted to remove him,
but be clung to the post, and after a great struggle he
was drawn into the promenade by persons who were
attracted by the noise and confusion. He was then taken
into custody, and committed assaults upon witness and
other constables with a staff which he had wrested: from
them, and after be was in custody he made his escape, but
was recaptured with the assistance of the audience. In
the commencement of the disturbance Mr. Eliason endea-
voured to pacify and remove the desendant from the theatre,
and when the defendant was taken to the station-house he
followed, and wished that he should be liberated.
Another constable of the same division corroborated
the statement of the last witneis.

Alan Phillips, constable of the F division, who had
been called in by some gentleman who bad left the theatre
for that purpose, received several blows from the defend-
ant in assisting the other constables to take him into

custody.
The defendant said that the disturbance had been
caused by the violent manner in which the police had used
their truncheons in endeavouring to take persons in the
promenade to the station-house.
Mr. Herrot, a surgeon-dentist, who had been sitting
near the defendant, was obliged to call upon the police
to remove him, in consequence of the offensive manner in
which he conducted himself, and they no sooner endea-
voured, after remonstrating with him, to remove him,
than he clung to a pillar, and ultimately threw
himself into the promenade. The confusion became so
general that Mr. Eliason came forward to address the
audience, in apology for the interruption, but his voice
was drowned by the uproarious manner in which the
defendant conducted himself.

Mr. Corbally, M. P., was also in the box, and his
attention was called by the defendant being dressed in a
blouse jacket. In a few minutes he commenced hollowing,
which continued for some time, at the top of his voice.
Some persons said he should leave the theatre, and on the
police coming in they requested he would desist, or go
away, but he refused, and one of the police laid his hand
on his collar. Some persons in the pit came to the place,
and drew the defendant down, the policeman still holding
him. From what be subsequently observed, the police re-
ceived very rough usage in the pit, and exhibited
the greatest forbearance in their preventing the mob to
rescue the defendant from them.

Scrjeant Jackson, A, who had been in the promenade,
detailed the manner in which the defendant committed

the assault upon the constables who had him in custody.
Mr. M'Naughton, of Albemarle-street, spoke to the
extreme forbearance of the police, but he could attribute
the resistance made less to the prisoner than to the mob,
who tried by every possible violence to rescue him.
Several other gentlemen gave evidence to the same
effect.

John Eliason proved that he was the manager of the

Theatre, and at the commencement of the second act he
heard a " tally-ho" from the boxes, when he discovered the
defendant occupying two chairs with his legs stretched
out. He instantly went to him with the police,
ho requested that he would desist, or leave the
theatre. The ladies and gentlemen became very much
alarmed, but the defendant obstinately refused to give
way, and on his laying hold of a pillar the row became
general, which caused the theatre to be clo-ed. After he
was removed to the station be called to see who the de-
fendant was, but he never said that if he was liberated the
concert would be allowed to proceed.
The defendant, who was attired in a dirty Mackintosh,
said ha might have been drunk when he entered the
theatre at half past eight o'clock, and on his crying out
" Tally-ho" the police came and acted with great violence.
Mr. TWIFORD inquired in what circle of society he
moved, in order to apportion the amount of fine.
The defendant said that he was an officer in the East

India Company, and called a witness, who said
that the defendant would not have interrupted the
audience bad there not been such an interval between
the first and second act. The audience, on his being
taken into custody, cried out " Shame," in consequence of
the gross manner the police had used their staves to drag
him out of the theatre.
Defendant—l was drunk.

Witness—Why, I should say you were something the
worse for wine, although you were not in a worse state 1
than many others in the theatre.—(Laughter.)
Mr. TWYFORD said that sufficient evidence had been
brought forward to prove the case, and he considered that
by inflicting a fine of .51., or one month's imprisonment,
could not be considered very severe.
Peter Brochard, Hamilton-place, St. John'3 Wood-
road, Thomas O'Rourke, East-road, City, Charles Ma-
riot, 89, Fleet-street, and Henry Toplis 16, Westbourne-
street, Pimlico, were then placed at the bar, charged
with disorderly conduct in the theatre, and being con-
cerned in obstructing the officers in the execution of their
duty, by attempting to rescue the defendant, Bourchier,
when in custody.
The defendant, Brochard exhibited his right arm, which
was dreadfully bruised, and which he said was inflicted by
constable Jackson with his staff. He also received a se-
vere blow upon the nose from another constable in the
street.

Sergeant Jackson said that the defendant fell several
times at the hatchway in the theatre, which caused the
wounds ; but no assault was committed in the streets, al.
though there was much struggling on the part of the de-
fendants.

The defendant Mariot said that he was merely endea-
vouring to extricate himself from the crowd, when he was
seized by a policeman, without any cause, and taken to the
station-house, to which he made no resistance.

The defendant O'Rourke also denied in the most posi-
tive manner that he attempted to obstruct the police in
the execution of their duty, nor did he knock a police-
man's hat off, as had been stated in evidence.
Mr. TWI(FORD was satisfied that Brochard and Mariot
had improperly interfered with the police ' • but as to
O'Rourke, it had been satisfactorily proved he bad knocked
off the policeman's hat, and he was inclined to consider
them in a worse manner if possible than the person with
whom the row commenced ; they should, therefore, pay a
fine of 51. each, or go to prison for a month.
The defendant Toplis, as he committed no assault, was
ordered to be discharged.