The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-01 00:00:00

TZIE STBREORANA AT CREMORNZ.

Yesterday, Mr. T. B. Simpson, proprietor of
Cremorne Gardens, appeared before Mr. Arnold,
at the Westminster Pelice•court, to answer a sum-
mons taken out by Mr. Samuel Beachcroft, sur-
veyor of the parish of Chelsea, for that he being
the builder engaged in erecting a building, situate
in Cremorne Gardens, neglected to give him, the
said surveyor, two days' notice before such build-
ing was commenced, contrary to the statute, by
which neglect he had rendered himself liable to a
penalty of £2O.
Mr. Pawle was engaged by Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Beachcroft said that about three years ago
he attended at that court to prefer a similar charge
against Mr. Simpson, and which was dismissed on
the ground that he (Mr. Arnold) by whom the case
was investigated, was of opinion that the structure
did not come within the meaning of the act as to
what was a building. The present was, however,
a very different case.
Mr. Arnold asked in what way the present
charge differed from that he formerly heard P
Mr. Beachcroft replied that in the present case
there was some brickwork upon the ground, and a
quantity of posts, which were sunk about four feet
in the ground in concrete. You, sir, dismissed the
former summons as you were of opinion that the
former structure was not to be a permanent one.
Mr. Arnold—This appears to be a very different
case. Let me hear the evidence.

Mr. Alfred Williams, clerk to Mr. Beacheroft,
proved that on the 12th of May he
went into
Cremorne Gardens and found
the building in
course of erection. It was nearly circular, about
108 feet in diameter, and at each angle posts
were let into the ground. There were also posts
varying from 34 to 26 feet in height. At the top
of the building there was to be a cupola, and the
roof was to be covered with asphalted felt. In the
centre of the structure was a raised platform, about
eight feet from
the ground, and the public were
admitted to it by an inclined ascent.
Mr. Pawle said that the present summons differed
very little from the previous one, and he was pre-
pared to show that the structure in question did
not come within the interpretation of the word
building," as contemplated by the act, as this,
after being erected, could be speedily removed,
and be placed in another position. Mr. Simpson
had
.been at a very considerable expense in endea-
vouring to obtain views of various parts of the
scenery of
Switzerland, and which he was desiror
of exhibiting at Cremorne Gardens. Messrs. Grieve
and Telbin
, under his direction, had been to
Switzerland, passing into Italy over the Alps by the
passf. of the Mont St. Gothard, and had taken views
o all the picturesque scenery on the journey.
These his client wanted to exhibit as a painting,
and it was only for this purpose that the structure
was erected. It was a structure that was easily
removable, and he considered not such a one as was
contemplated by the act as a building, any more
than could a dancing booth, or any large tent for
the exhibition of shows at a fair. After a long ar-
gument,
Mr. Arnold observed that it was a case of some
importance, and that before he gave his dec i,ion
he should take an opportunity of going to the
Gardens, and seeing the " building" in question.
He concluded by saying that he would let the
parties know when he would resume the investi-
gation of the case.