The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron Bramwell

and a Common Jury.)

BALLARD V. GERY.-AN EXPENSIVE HUNTING BOX.

This was
.an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover the rent of a hunting box, the amount of a
bill of exchange, and the dilapidations done the box
above mentioned.

Mr. B. Rigby appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
iVills for the defendant.

The facts were these :—ln May last the plaintiff,
who has an estate near Malvern, in Gloucestershire,
consisting of a house and some lands attached to
it, and which is close to one of the hunts in that
county, let it to the defendant, who is a gentleman
living upon his means, and who is described as a
man of jovial habits. The parties were on terms of
intimacy, and continued to be so after the defen-
dant occupied the house. It was alleged, on the
part of the defendant, that the house had been put
into thorough repair by him, that it had cost £2OO,
that he had from time to time lent him money, and
that he had given him a bill of exchange ; and also
that he had led a very jolly life then, the
house being full of his friends, that they
were up to all sorts of jokes between them,
had pulled the place nearly to pieces, and this in a
period only extending from July to September.
The tenancy had been a yearly one, and therefore
a year's rent could be claimed. The bill had been
dishonoured, and the defendant refused to pay any-
thing. Defence was that the plaintiff had no agree-
ment, that he would not let the defendant have money,
that he never repaired the place, and that no dilapi-
dations had been permitted. it was also alleged
that the plaintiff had been in prison for debt, and
was not likely to ba in a position to pay £2OO for
repairs. To this it was answered that he had al-
ways paid those debts, and therefore that showed
that he had money. A servant of the defendant
proved that he had seen plaintiff give him money
on several occasions.

The jury, after hearing both the learned counsel,
gave a verdict for the plaintiff—.£B9 10s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

BOW-STREET.

SUNDAY EVENINGS FOR THE. PEOPLE.—The
adjourned proceedings in this case were resumed
to-day before the chief magistrate, Sir T. llenry.
It will be recollected that on the first occasion a
summons was taken out against the former pro-

prietors of St. Martin's-hall, for an iufringemeni
of the 21st of Geo. 111., cap. 49, by the giving of
an entertainment on Sunday evening by a so

ciety calling themselves " Recreative Christians."
Mr. Baxter Langley was the principal mover in
these " Sunday Evenings for the People," and
they were instituted in a great measure by the
Sunday League, whose object was to obtain the
opening of certain public places of amusement on
Sundays. The summons was originally granted
upon the information of Robert Baxter, the chair-
man of the Lord's-day Observance Society.
Mr. Clark (on the part of Messrs. Baxter, Rose,
and Norton) appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Besley (on the part of Messrs. Shaen and Roscoe)
appeared for the defendants.
The programmes issued on the occasion stated
that there would be a musical introduction on the
organ, then an address on the part of Mr. Baxter
Langley, after which followed a variety of sacred
music, selected from various oratorios, Miss Rose
Hersee, Mr. R. Mason, and Mr. Welch being ad-
vertised as the principal solo vocalists. The plan of
admission was set forth as being free, but there
were various portions of the hall to which admis-
sion could only be had on the purchase of tickets.
The great point to ba -decided was whether
these entertainments were contrary to the Act
of Geo. 111., the first section of which was to the
following effect:—" That from and after the pass-
ing of this act, any house which shall be opened or
used for public entertainment or amusement, or for
publicly debating on any subject whatsoever, upon
any part of the Lord's-day, called Sunday, and to
which persons shall be admitted by the payment of
money, or by tickets sold for money, shall be deemed
a disorderly house, and the keeper of such house
shall forfeit the sum of two hundred pounds for
every day that such house shall be opened or used
on the Lord's-day to such person as will sue for
the same, and be otherwise punishable as the law
directs in cases of disorderly houses."
Sir Thomas Henry said the case had been post-
poned on the former occasion in order that both
parties might agree upon a special case for the de-
cision of the superior courts.
Mr. Besley said they had been unable to agree,
and therefore they had to ask the Court to decide
upon the terms of the case to be submitted to the
Court for argument.
Mr. Clark said the name of the actual person
against whom the proceedings were directed was
one case of dispute.
Mr. Besley said he was quite willing that it should
be clearly understood that Mr. Baxter Langley,
who was connected with the Sunday League, should
be looked upon as the actual defendant.
That being agreed to, the learned magistrate
thought the fact that tickets were issued and taken
with the programme, would clearly s tato the case
for argument.

Mr. Besley thought that it also ought to be men-
tioned that the hall had been registered under the
Toleration Act as a place of religious worship.
Sir T. Henry said he did not recollect that any-
thing was said about that on the last occasion.
Mr. Besley—The question the Court would
have to decide was whether the Hall was on the
occasion a place of public amusement.
Sir T. Henry said that it would have to be de-
cided by the Court whether the registration under
the act authorised such au entertainment as that
advertised by the defendants. He thought if the
case stopped at the announcement with respect to
the issue of tickets, the court would decide whether
the place was one of public entertainment or not.
Mr. Besley was quite agreeable to that.
Sir T. Henry thought that, as the hall had been
converted into a
theatre, all proceedings in the
matter had been dropped, but he presumed that it
had been thought necessary to proceed with the
case with respect to other places.
Mr. Clark said it
was so. He thought if the
registration of the hall was made a point, there was
no reason why Punch and Judy might not be re-
gistered.
Sir T. Henry said that could be stated to the
court.

Mr. Clark—lt was an attempt to evade an act
of Parliament, and therefore he felt it necessary
that the greatest care - should be taken in agreeing
to the terms of the case.
Mr. Besley said the matter was, in fact, a ques-
tion between the Sunday League and the_Lord's-
day Observance Society.
Mr, Clark said the fact was whether these
mtetings were religious or irreligious and the de-
sire to hold them was an attempt to overthrow the
act of Parliament The proper way to proceed, if
the act was objectionable, was to go to Parliament
and get it repealed.
Various points were then agreed to as forming
part of the case, one of which was that the associa-
tion should be described as an association for the
development of religious feeling.
l\ir.
ti 3 t eos 1 e/8-0 O.T e penalties the prosecution go for
a

Mr. Clark said he had no objection that the pro-
ceedings should be confined to the inflicting one
he would not bind him-
selfpen a
tl
oty
aonfyit
h2ionog;
ehl
soei.v ever,
Sir T. Henry had no doubt the entering of one
penalty against the defendant would be found
quite sufficient.
A long discussion then ensued between the
learned gentlemen as to the other terms of the case,
Mr. Clark wishing to embrace a summary of the
whole of the programme issued by the defendant
with respect to the nature of the music performed,
the lectures delivered, and the prices charged for
the different portions of the hall.
Sir T. Henry thought that the case was being
unnecessarily lengthened, but he remarked that he
had no power to close the discussion. The groat
point to De decided wag whether the program me