Star.
London, England, 1830-11-22 00:00:00

Ilit KING ♦ JOHN GOSS AND •NOSYit.

Mr. Wightnian stated, that this was an information against the
deendants, being the proprietors of a minor theatre in Manchester, for
suffering certain entertainments and representations therein, the same
not being duly licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, or protected by the
King's letters patent. The information has already been tried at the
Assists, and a conviction had ensued. The Learned Counsel con.
tended that the conviction ought to be confirmed, as the provision of
toe act 10 of' Geo. 2, chap. 28, under which the indictment was laid,
had not been complied with. The second section
,of the Act
stated, that no persons shall represent any theatrical enter-
tainments unless lfccnced by the Lord Chamberlain, and the sth section
further enacts, that if they have the license, or King's letters patent,
thioshall only be suffered to enact interludes, Ite. in the City of West-
muster, or within the verge of the court. The objection which would
le tsken on the other side, arose out of the construction of the Act, in
le ich it would be contended that his Majesty had no jurisdiction in the
County of Lancaster, but he apprehended their lordship's would enter-
ta,n a different opinion, when the tenour of that and the previous Acts
~,re considered.

Mr. PEEL followed on the same side, and remarked that the court,
ley taking such a view of the Act as would necessarily reverse the con-
s iion, would be virtually repealing it, and putting a meaning upon it
gayer contemplated by the framer.
Mr. COURTENAY, for the defendant, submitted that the con.
viction could not be supported; inasmuch as that if the charges
contained in the indictment were all proved, yet, he contended,
y did not constitute any offence against any known act of
parliament. The defendant was charged with having suffered theatri.
eal performances to take place without having letters patent from the
King, or a license from the Lord Chamberlain. He denied that the
Kiug or the Lord Chamberlain had power to grant such letters or license
in the county of Lancaster, and he would undertake to prove that pro-
pu‘ition. The only competent authority to grant licenses for theatrical
amusements were the local magistrates, and the indictment did not say
one word about not having obtained their license, but made the offence
sin offence by not having letters of the King, or a license from the
Lord Chamberlain, which, he contended they had no power to grant. He
proceeded to give a brief history of the acts relating to this subject. The
first license we find under the privy seal was given by Jas. 11. to Fletcher
and William Shakapeare to enact plays, and they were therein styled
the King's servants. The King and the Lord Chamberlain, the learned
Counsel insisted, had only jurisdiction over the household and the
King's savants. If this was not the use, why had it been found ne-
cessary to have local acts to unction performances ? If the King had
jurisdiction, his letters patent would have superseded the necessity of
any acts. It was this reason that induced the Act of George 111. to be
passed, giving power to the local magistrates to grant licenses for thea-
trical performances.
The LORD CHIEF JussicE here remarked, that if the defendant
had produced hb license from the magistrates on the trial of the indict-
ment, it would have been a good defence.
Their Lordships, after some deliberation, confirmed the conviction.

KING V. wit.martsort.
This was an action for an assault committed by the defendant upon
the Rev. Mr. Batson, in which the former was found guilty at Carlisle.
The defendant was brought up for judgment this morning, when be
put in an affidavit declaring that the assault in question was accidental.
Mr. Justice PARE said that this affidavit was at variance with the
defendant's conduct, be having refused, when called upon, to make an
apology for the blow given. The prosecutor having, however, called
upon the Court to pass but a slight sentence upon the defendant, they
were willing to accede to the request, and sentenced the defendant to
pay a fine of 20s and enter into security to keep the peace for two years
himself in 2001. and two sureties in 1001. each.

The fine having been paid, and the necessary securities entered into,
the defendant left the Court.

BOARD OF EXCISE, Nov. 20.
THE KING V. rlcTox.

Mr. SHEPHERD, IS Counsel for the Crown, stated that this was an
information charging the defendant and a person named Wakelin, who
was not to be found, with having on their premises a quantity of spirits
which had been illegally distilled.
It appeared from the evidence of Alex. M'Knight, Joseph Frederick
Linstead, Thomas Joliffe, Wm. Fitzhugh, and others, officers of excise,
that the defendant was an entered dealer in foreign spirits and cyder, in
Denmark-street, St. Giles's. Having received information that he also
carried on an illicit distillery, the officers, ow the 2d of June, 1828, went
to his house. In a cyder cellar they found several casks of cyder, and
also several asks of wash, and on searching further they discovered that
a still had recently been there.
The defendant wished to show by cross-examination that the vault
where the still had been did not belong to his house, but to the next,
but he failed to establish that it was so.

The Court ordered all the articles seized to be condemned, and mitt.
gated the penalty of 200 L to 1001.