The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-06 00:00:00

chambermaid that attended to the apartments No.
4. I should not know either the gentleman or the
lady again.
Cross-examined—The gentleman appeared to be
in his nightdress, and was leaning on his elbows in
bed, with his fact, towards me. I was in the small
bedroom on both of the occasions on which the lady
and gentleman were in the house. I think the lady
wore curls brushed off her forehead. I have never
seen her since. I was not examined as a witness
at the Dublin trial.

Re-examined—The lady was oddly dressed as I
thought.
Wm, Sangster, hotel-keeper,'Rosstrevor, deponed
—A gentleman and lady were in my house from
the sth to the 15th of August, 1857. They occu-
pied rooms in my hotel during the whole of that
period, except that the gentleman was away one or
two nights. I would know the gentleman again.
(Major Yelverton was here called into court, and
identified by the witness as the gentleman who
occupied his rooms along with the lady.) I did not
know at the time the gentleman came to my house
that he was Major Yelverton, but Ido so now. I
was at the trial of " Thirlwall v. Yelverton" last
spring, I saw the lady at that trial. I saw her
while she was giving her evidence, and she was
asked to look at me. I was then satisfied that she
was the person who had been in my house in August,
1857. To the best of my recollection, it was the first
week of the trial that I saw the lady. The lady
and gentleman occupied a sitting room, bed-room,
and dressing-room. There was a bed in the dress-
ing-room. I charged 3s 6d a night on the footing
of the two parties occupying the bedroom as a bed-
room, and the dressing-room as a dressing-room,
and not a bedroom. I would certainly Rot have
allowed them so to occupy the rooms if I had
thought them not married. During the time they
were in my hotel, I drove the lady to Warrenpoint,
and rather beyond it. Rosstrevor is seven miles
from Newry, and an Irish mile is a good bit more
than an ordinary mile. I believe the gentleman
was away at that time. I cannot say how lady's
hair was dressed, but I should say it was in the
Eugenie style, frizzed back.
Mrs. Catherine Sangster, wife of the last witness
deposed to Major Yelverton coming on the 4th of
August to take apartments, which he said he wanted
for himself and his wife. She supplied sheets for
only one bed. There were no sheets on the bed in
the dressing-room that she knew of. She would
not have let these rooms to a lady and gentleman
but that she believed them to be married.
Cross-examined—When Major Yelverton called
on the 4th of August he saw the rooms. The bed
was in the dressing-room when he saw them.
I saw no lady's clothes in the bed in the dress-
ing-room when I was in it after the rooms were put
in order. I distinctly recollect that Major Yelver-
ton said it was for his wife and himself that he
wanted the rooms. They walked out often. I could
not say if they walked arm-in-arm. We did not
ask their names. No letters came to them while at
my house.
Miss Sangster in part corroborated the evidence,
and was examined as to an entry in her books, in
which the name Fitzsimmons was erased and Lang-
worth substituted ; but she could not recollect when
or how the name of Longworth was put in, but it
must have been a good while after the parties were
in the house, and after they had heard something
of who they were.
At this stage the case was adjourned till next
day. _ _ _

The Court-room was largely attended during the
day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 5.

BAIL COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before

Mr:Justice Blackburn and a Common JUry.)
LYONS AND WIFE V. KNOWLES.-DRAMATIC
REPRESENTATIONS.

The real plaintiff in this action was Miss Swan-
borough, now Mrs. Lyons, and formerly lessee of
the Strand Theatre, against the defendant, who is
the proprietor of the Theatre Royal, Manchester.
The action was brought on behalf of the female
plaintiff, who the declaration stated was the owner
of two dramatic pieces as assignee of the author,
viz., " The Bride of Abydos" and " Fra Diavolo,"
with the full right of representation in them, and it
further stated that the defendant had wrongfully
represented the pieces against the consent of the
female plaintiff, whereby he had incurred the penalty
of 40s. for each representation. The defendant
pleaded, first, not guilty; secondly, he denied the
plaintiff's right in the pieces; and, thirdly, he tra-
versed the assignment of the copyright.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and
Mr. Thompson were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Fonblanque were counsel
for the defendant.

Mr. W. H. Swanborough, the plaintiff's brother
and present manager of the Strand Theatre, deposed
that the two pieces in question, "The Bride of Aby-
dos" and " Fra Diavolo," were written by Mr. H. J.
Byron, and purchased by his sister, who at the same
time took an assignment of the right of representa-
tion from the author in writing, The document
was missed when the alterations were made at
the Strand Theatre about eighteen months ago,
and had not been found since. The permission
for representation was 10s. 6d. per night for first-
class theatres, 7s. for second-class, and ss. for third-
class. The defendant had on a former occasion paid
10s. 6d. per night, and on one occasion he chose to
pay the penalties. Never made any arrangeement
with Mr. Charles Dillon or his agent for the repre-
sentations in question at 7s. per night. When Mr.
Knowles was applied to for payment, Mr. C.
Dillon sent up £5, which was 7s. per night for the
fourteen nights, but it was returned to him. Pro-
ceedings had been taken against Mr. Dillon for re-
presentations of the pieces at other provincial
towns. That was before he left for America.
Mr. H. J. Byron, the author, deposed that he
sold the entire right of representation to Miss
Swanborough, and regularly assigned it by writing.
Mr. Levy, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called,
and proved the correspondence in the case, and the
nature of the proceedings that had been taken
against Mr. Dillon.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that the plaintiff
must be nonsuited. There was no proof of regis-
tration of assignment as required by the act.
Mr Justice Blackburn said he would not stop
the case, but give the learned sergeant leave to
move on that point,
Mr. Sergeant Pigott described this as a shabby
action towards the defendant, and expressed an
opinion that if the plaintiff had known the real
facts of the case she would not have consented to
the bringing of this action. The fact was that last
summer Mr. Dillon entered into an arrangement
with Mr. Knowles, whereby Mr. Knowles was to
have one-half of the gross receipts for the theatre,
lights, servants, properties, printing, advertising,
&c. Mr. Dillon finding his own company, paying
them, arranging with the authors, and selecting
his own pieces. And in carrying out that arrange-
ment, Mr. Dillon agreed with Miss Swanborough
for permission to represent these pieces at 7s. per
night. The learned counsel called
Mr. Stanislaus Calheam, a comedian, one of Mr.
Dillon's company, who deposed that he made an
agreement with Mr. Swanborough, for Mr. Dillon
at 7s. per night. He corroborated the learned
counsel's statement relative to the arrangement be-
tween Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Thomas Chambers, the defendant's manager
and treasurer; Mr. H. M. Barret, Mr. Dillon's
stage manager ; and Mr. John Shickle, the leader
of the band, were called in support of defendant's
case.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said there could be no
dispute about the facts. Mr. Dillon was to find the
company, and pay them, select the pieces, and cause
them to be performed, without any interference by
Mr. Knowles. The latter was to find the theatre,
servants, lights, and the band, the music being a
necessary part of the entertainment, printing and
advertising, the defendant's servants taking the
money at the doors. The gross receipts were to be
divided between Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon,
and the question was whether upon these facts
it amounted to a representation or causing
to be represented within the meaning of the
act of Parliament whereby Mr, Knowles was
liable, of law. and
was a ques,..,—_
not of fact for the jury. He thought it would be
vrtter 'or nim to direct a 'verdict for the plaintiff
with leave to the defendant to move.
Both the learned counsel assented, and
The jury, by direction of his lordship, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for £2B, leave being re-
served to the defendant to move the court above on
the points of law.