The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-31 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT.-GUILFORD, JULY 30.
DUN?; V. DAVIDGE. _

This was an action brought in the name of tlie
plaintiff, who is the Treasurer of Drury-lane Theatre,
against the present lessee of the Coburg Theatre.—
The declaration stated that " William Dunn, the
plaintiff in this suit, who sues as well for the poor of
the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in the county of
Surrey, as for himself in this behalf, complains of
George Bolwell Davidge, the defendant in this suit,
being in the custody of the Marshal of the Mar-
shalsea of our Lord the now King, before the King
himself, of a plea, that he renders to the poor of the
parish aforesaid, and to the said plaintiff, who sues
as aforesaid, the sum of 2001. of lawful money of
Great Britain, which he, the said defendant, owes
to and unjustly detains from them. For that the
'said defendant, within the space of six calendar
' months before the commencement of this suit—
to wit, on the Bth day of November, in the year
1827, in a certain place known by the name
of the Coburg Theatre, the same theatre being
within twenty miles of London and Westminster,
without lawful authority, by virtue of letters patent
from his present Majesty, or any of his present Ma-
jesty's predecessors, and without license from the
then present or from any other Lord Chamberlain of
his Majesty's household, did cause to be acted, re-
presented, and performed, for gain and reward, a cer-
tain play and entertainment of the stage, called a
Serious Drama, founded on Mr. Home's popular
tragedy of " Douglas," contrary to the statute in
that case made and provided, whereby the said de-
fendant forfeited the sum of 501., and thereby, and
by force of the Statute aforesaid, an action had
ac-
crued to the said plaintiff, to demand and have from
the said defendant the said sum of 50/. as a parcel
of the sum above demanded. And also, for that the
said defendant, within the space of six calendar
months before the commencement of this suit, &c."
The second count contained a recital of the same
offence, and demanded a second penalty of 50/. In
the third count the defendant was charged with
having caused to be performed, on the 9th November,.
1826, a serious drama, founded on Shakspeare's
lebrated tragedy called the " Life and Death of King

Richard 111. ; or the Battle of Bosworth Field,"
whereby the said defendant had forfeited a further
penalty of 501. The fourth count charged a repeti-
tion of the same offence and forfeit, and then went
on, " and yet the said defendant, although often
called upon so to do, hath not as yet paid the said sum
of 2001. above demanded, or any part thereof, to the
said plaintiff; but he to do this bath hitherto wholly
refused, and still doth refuse ; and, therefore, as well
for the poor of the said parish of St. Mary, Lam-
beth, as for himself in this behalf, he brings his
suit."

Mr. GURNEY, for the plaintiff, said that, by a
Statute passed a considerable number of years, their
former right of patent had been secured to the two
great theatres. By this Act a penalty of 501. was
enacted against any one who, within twenty miles
of London, should cause to be played, for hire or re-
ward, any play, entertainment, farce, or interlude, or
any part thereof. The defendant had violated this
Statute in two initanceq, and had consequently ren-
dered himself liable to two penalties of 501. each.
From certain play-bills of the Coburg Theatre, it
appeared that Doug/as and Richard the Third were
brought out for the purpose of introducing a Master
Smith; and, if the play-bills were to be believed, it
was clear these regular plays of the legitimate stage
were drawing great audiences to the Coburg,, for
they were announced as being nightly received with
" .he rapturous applauses of crowded houses." It
must, therefore, be admitted that numbers of persons
must be drawn away from the great theatres, and
their patents of course suffer injury.
The copyist of Drury-lane Theatre stated, that
on the Bth of November he went, by instruction, to
the pit ()rule Coburg Theatre, in company with his
brother. He had a prompt copy of Douglas with
him, and checked what was uttered by the per-
formers by the copy in his possession, and he found
that they were going regularly through Mr. Horse's
tragedy as it stood in his prompt copy. They,
however, made this alteration, that they put it into
three acts instead of five. On the following night
he went again with a prompt copy of Richard the
Third, and he heard that play performed without
alteration from his prompt copy, the sole difference
being that it was divided into four acts ,instead of
five.

Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPllUS—Witness's
acquaintance with Shaksveare was very limited.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Limited I not limited, for limit
implies substance, and your knowledge appears to be
none at all. Do you mean to tell us that King
Richard is murdered in the same manner at the Co-
burg as at Drury-lane ?
Cross-examination of the witness continued—l
received my instructions to go on this business to
the Coburg Theatre in the treasury of Drury-lane
Theatre.

Mr. AnoLPitus, for the defendant, said if the Jury
gave their verdict against him, it would be the ruin
of an honest man, and of bis means of living. The
plaintiff's Counsel had dwelt with great emphasis
on the words " rapturous applause," at the bottom
of the Coburg Theatre play-bills; but, if that
Learned Counsel had been in the habit of reading
the great theatre play-bills, he would have found
there every day tales of " brilliant audiences,"
" overwhelming applause," " thunders of approba-
tion ;" se that, after them, Mr. Davidge'b " rap-
turous applause" sounded extremely modest. his
Learned Friend had called Master Smith a young
Roscius, but he did not know where his Learned
Friend found the title. There had been a young
Roscius at both the great theatres some years ago,
who, after he had well filled his pockets, was found
to be no comet, but a candle.—(A laugh.)—The
Learned Counsel concluded a long address by tell-
ing the Jury that, if they returned a verdict against
his client, he would quit that Court a ruined man.
Lord TENTERDEN summed up, after which the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on the first and
third counts—d)amages, 1001.