The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-28 00:00:00

143 SS.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-3/ay 27.
At Bow-street Police Court Mr. Joseph Bla-
mont, a barrister of 6, Old-square, Lincoln's-inn,
I attended before Mr. Hall to prefer a charge against
Joseph Belasco, the keeper of a small "ticket-
office," opposite the Royal Italian Opera-house, in
Bow-street, for having obtained 1/. lls. O. of him
by false pretences.
Mr. Lewis appeared for the defendant ; the com-
plainant conducting his own case.
The case appeared to excite considerable interest,
and one or two other gentlemen who had made
similar complaints to the magistrate were in attend-
ance, intending to be guide]. by the decision of the
Court.
Charles Constans, clerk to the complainant,
proved that ho was sent to the Royal Italian Opera-
house on Monday, the 17th inst., with instructions
to purchase three of the amphitheatre stall tickets,
advertised at 10s. 6d. each, if procurable, or three
at 7s. or 55., if the former could not be obtained.
He went to the new theatre, and being informed
that the temporary office was on the opposite side
of the street, he crossed over as he supposed, to the
office in question, and saw the defendant, whom
he supposed to be the authorised agent of Mr.
Gye. The office was a small recess, apparently
partitioned off from the shop, and fitted up with a
plan of the interior of the new theatre, the placards
inside and out intimating that tickets were to be
had within. Witness stated what he required,
upon which the defendant produced three tickets,
saying, " Are you aware of the price ?" Witness
said he wanted the half-guinea tickets. Defendant
said, " These are the half-guinea tickets," and,
pointing to the middle of the third row upon his
plan, said that they admitted the purchaser to those
places. Upon this representation witness paid him
the sum he demanded, namely, 1/. 11s. 6d. The
stalls purchased admitted to the performance of
Tuesday evening, the 18th. On Wednesday
morning witness went again to the defen-
dant's office, by direction of his employer, to
complain that they were only ss. tickets, and ad-
mitted to the fifth row instead of the third, as repre-
sented. The defendant and another man were there,
and the latter said, " They altered the plan at the
t'leatre, and we can't be responsible for the."
Witness demanded back 16s. 6d., the difference in
the price charged, and the value of the tickets, but
they refused, and ordered witness out of the shop.
The defendant said they paid Bs. 6d. each for the
tickets themselves, and offered to bet witness a
sovereign that he could not get them at ss. each.
Witness having now discovered that he had mis-
taken this place for the genuine office, which was
a few doors off, demanded to know the name of
the defendant and the other person present. The
defendant said, " The name is over the door plain
enough, and the number is 24." Witness looked
up, and saw the name of "Harris" outside.
Mr. Lewis—Did the defendant say, when he
sold you those tickets, that they were the tickets
issued by the conductors of the new Opera-house
at 10s. 6d ?
Witness—No ; he said "These are the 10s. Gd.
tickets."
Mr. Lewis—Meaning that they were the tickets
which he sold at 10s. 6d..
Mr, Edward Hall, of Myddleton-square, keeper
of the box-office of the new theatre, deposed that
the tickets produced admitted to the fifth row of
the amphitheatre stalls, and were ss. each. The
first row of stalls were 10s. Gd., the second row 75.,
and all the rest were ss.
Mr. Lewis—Then the third and the fifth row
are the same price ?
Witness—Yes ; ss. That was the price charged
for the tickets produced ; but of course we do not
know who are the purchasers, or what use may be
made of them. No extra charge beyond the price
advertised is ever made at our office.
Mr. Lewis—But you are aware that tickets are
purchased by speculators, like defendant, and like
the booksellers at the West-end, to be sold again
at double and treble the price advertised ?
Witness—No doubt of that.
The Magistrate—l do not attach much import.
ance to the price charged for these tickets ; for
everybody knows that the dealers charge a large
profit upon them ; and if the public are willing to pay
it, instead of going to the theatre for their tickets,
no one has a right to murmur. The question here
is, what was the representation made by defendant
when be sold the tickets ?
Mr. Lewis—l submit that the summons has been
already answered. It charges the defendant with
having represented them as the tickets issued by
Mr. Gye at 10s. 6d. each. In answer to my ques-
tion the witness admits that the defendant made no
such representation.
Mr. Blamont, the complainant, observed that
there could not be a doubt of the meaning implied,
if not actually expressed, by the defendant, who
had also represented the seats to be in the 3d
instead of the sth row.
Mr. Hall inquired of the witness Constans if the
seats were numbered on the defendant's plan ?
The witness replied that none of the seats were
numbered.
Mr. Hall considered it was just possible, under
these circumstances, that the defendant might have
been mistaken as to the row of seats to which these
tickets admitted. No doubt strong conjectures and
surmises to the contrary might be entertained; but
it would not do to convict upon mere surmise, and
therefore the summons must be dismissed.