The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-06 00:00:00

THE SIIN,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, June 5.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Justice WIGHTMAN and
a Common Jury.)
THE ARGYLE ROOMS.--JACOBS v. BIGNELL AND ( THERE.
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Heatly, and Mr. Barstow ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General, Mr.
Lush, and Mr. Parry conducted the defence.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in stating the case to the jury, said,
this action, which was one of considerable public in-
terest and importance, was brought to recover five
penalties of 1001. each from the defendants, Bignell,
Laurent, Bryer, and others, for keeping a house or room
for public music and dancing, without being duly licensed_
under the statute. The statute in question was an old
Act of Parliament passed in the 25th year of the reign
.
of George the Third, in consequence of the evils which
arose from unlicensed places of entertainment of h
his
description. Without due regulations, and unless subject
to some kind of restriction, they held out the greatest
temptations to those who frequented them, and personst
became so captivated with the pleasures and amusements
which they offered as to be induced to supply the means
of indulging in them by adopting dishonest or irregular
or practices. The Act provided that the proprietor
pro-
prietors of rooms, saloons, or gardens, which were kept
open for public entertainment without_ aicences,she ould
forfeit to every person who should sue for
the am
the
sum of 1001. for each day it was so kept open, and be
disorderlyotherwise phuhnhissehs. able
Tahse directedthpelalcaewnhwunder consideration
in the cases of
Argyle
t beßooms, old iin
enough Windmill,
to rec 1
svitaresewt,eHllskynmoawtknet.as Some
m
might
lect that at one time there existed in Regent-street
rooms for dancing, called the Argyle Rooms ; they
were burnt down several years ago, and recently, or
within the last two or three years, a splendid saloon was
erected in Windmill-street for music and dancing. In
1849, the persons who then appeared to be the managers
or proprietors were the present defendants. It was
opened in that
year to the public without a licence.
The Act made it incumbent on the proprietor to have
written on some conspicuous part of the exterior
of the building a notification that it was licensed pur-
suant to Act of Parliament, and also to produce his
licence if any party ;not seeing such a notice outside
might request him to do so. In the present case the
defendants did not comply with these requirements of
the Act, and the natural inference was that the rooms
were opened without any licence. The plan, trick,
scheme, or contrivance by which they endeavoured to
evade the law was this: they announced that dancing
lessons would be given at the rooms, and they charged
each grown up lady or gentleman who entered one shil-
ling, under the pretence of their taking dancing lessons.
The defendant Bryer, it appeared, applied at the
Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in 1849 for a licence, but it
was refused by the magistrates, notwithstanding the
rooms were opened at that time for dancing. Charles
Emile Laurent, who was once a celebrated cornopeau
player, took the management of the band, and Emile
Laurent, his father, had the general superintendence of
the affairs in the interior. There was a regular money-
taking place, but 'persons were stationed at the door
to prevent informers entering. In the following year,
1850, Charles Emile Laurent renewed his applica-
tion to the magistrates, and on stating that he had hired
the rooms for three years from Mr. Bignell, a licence
was granted to him, and the rooms were now carried on
in the reguar way under that licence. He might men-
tion that Bignell was a well-known sporting gentleman,
and the owner of a cigar-shop and saloon adjoining the
Argyle Rooms. As soon as the dancing ceased, and the
lamps were extinguished, this saloon of his came into
requisition, and was kept open until a very late hour in
the morning; such ladies and gentlemen who wished to
prolong their amusements generally adjourning there
after the Argyle Rooms were closed. The penalties
now sought to be recovered were for keeping the rooms
open unlicensed on the 41)1, sth, 6th, 7th, and Bth of
June, 1849, and it would be for the jury to say whether
the plaintiff; under the circumstances which would be
adduced in evidence, was entitled to one or all of those
penalties.

Mr. George Baggard, solicitor and vestry-clerk of St.
James's, Westminster, examined by Mr. HEATLY, said he
was instructed by the governors and overseers of the
parish to oppose the application for a licence for the Ar-
gyle Rooms at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in Sep-
tember, 1849. He attended accordingly on that occa-
sion, but the counsel who appeared for the proprietors of
the rooms withdrew his application. At the next ses-
sions, in 1850, he again attended to oppose a similar ap-
plication, but the magistrates granted a licence.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY. GENERAL—HIS
opposition in 1850 was unsuccessful. The magistrates
were almost unanimous in granting the-licence; only
two or three opposed it out of twenty-two magistrates,
James Gregg, beadle at the sessions, gave similar
testimony.
Mr. John Willis, formerly a police•constable, was
called and examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I was employed
by Mr. Bryer on the 19th October, 1849, to attend the
Argyle Rooms to keep out disorderly persons, prostitutes,
and pickpockets, which he did up to last year. At the
time I was employed Mr. Bryer told me that ho
made the engagement on behalf of Mr. Chris-
topher Brown, whom he represented to be the
proprietor of the rooms. I often saw Messrs. Bryer,
Laurent, and Bignell in the rooms, but only the former
took any part in the active management of the rooms.
The rooms were always conducted with strict order, and
care was taken to observe propriety and decorum in
those who attended. The rooms were open from
eight o'clock till half-past eleven o'clock every night.
I recollect a grand ball taking place on Tuesday, the 4th
of June, 1849, Messrs. Bryer and Biguell were there
that night, but I did not hear them give any direction.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I know
Mr. Christopher Brown. lie was the lessee, but I can't
say whether he had the management of the rooms. I
have seen him there, taking part in the management.
Mr. Bryer acted as director of the proceedings, and I
believe ho exEcuted the decorations. On the night'of
the grand bull the rooms were re-decorated by Mr.
Bryn-. Mr. Laurent, jun., was the leader of the band.
Everything was conducted in the rooms with perfect
propriety and decency.
Richard Francis—l know the Argyle Rooms in Great
Windmill-street. I am a printer, and I printed the
posting-bills for those rooms. I recollect the 4th of
June, 1849. I printed bills for that day, but Ido not
know whether they were posted. I have got a bill for
the ball, which I printed by direction of Mr. Bryer, but
I saw neither Mr. Bignell nor Mr. Laurent about it.
The treasurer of the rooms, Mr. Bryer, usually paid
me. I also printed a general bill for the rooms by di-
rection of Mr. Bryer. I printed for the rooms between
October, 1849, and August, 1850.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL-4 was
employed on behalf of Mr. Christopher Brown, and I
debited him with the cost of the bills in my books.
Charles Nightingale—l was manager and conductor
of the Flora-gardens in the summer of 1850, and dur-
ing that year Mr. Bryer brought some bills to Mr.
Jacobs, who distrinutecrthein about the gardens.
Mr. Justice WIGHT.3IAN—WI3O is Jacobs?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The virtuous plaintiff,
my Lord.
Mr. CHAMBERS—No. He does not come forward for
virtue.