The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-03 00:00:00

KIRKDALE PETTY SESSIONS.

THE LIVER PROSECUTIONS

An adjourned Petty Session was held on Tuesday rase, at
the Court-house, at Kirkdale, for the purpose of hearing and
deciding on the further informations preferred by the pro-
prietors of the Theatre-Royal, against the actors of the
minor theatres. The cases were'heard before the Rev. Miles
Formby, chairman, Charles Horsfall, gsq., and Richard
Alison, Esq.
Mr. James appeared as counsel for tv--
Messrs. Foster, Lloyd. and Waln, attorneys
for the actors . Mr. James Norris, attorney

,e proprietor

Mr. Sowler

Mr. JAMES, in opening the proeeedings,'stated, that there
were four informations against ►l'lr. Hoskins ; but that gen-
tleman was desirous of pleading guilty. He had taken his
advice, seeing there was no chance for him of escaping con-
viction ; and therefore he had thought it was better to with-
draw his plea of not guilty, and throw himself upon the mercy
of the court.

The CHAIRMAN said, that Mr. James was of course aware
that they had no power to mitigate ?
Mr. JAMES said he was quite aware of that; he had ex-
plained to Mr. Hoskins everything, and he perfectly under-
stood his position.
Mr. Hoskins.—l plead guilty. In extenuation of my fault,
I must say that it was necessity which compelled me to com-
mit it ; and I was not at the time aware that I was acting
illegally.
The CHAIRMAN.—On former occasions, when an arrange-
ment bad been made, the informer withdrew his informations.
Mr. IVIYERS.—It can't be done in this case.

Mr. JAMES.—Mr. Hoskins ,having consented to plead
guilty, he was not empowered to do so now. The proprietors
were determined to• prevent the infringements upon their
property.
The CIIAIRMAN.—They may of coarse forego their portion
of the penalty ; but the other half mast go to the poor of the
parish.
Mr. JAMES.—That is arranged. •We may forego one-half
of the penalty, unless the offence is repeated. Of course we
cannot control the parish authorities.
Mr. Hoskins.—lf the parish is not merciful I must throw
myself on the county, and make it keep me. Mr. Amos
(the governor of Kirkdale Gaol) will have to find me com-
fortable apartments. (A. laugh.)
Four informations were then pressed against Mr. Hoskins,
for having taken part in " Jonathan Bradford" and " The
Doncaster St. Leger. Mr. Hoskins having withdrawn his
plea of not guilty, was convicted, in each case, in £5O.
Mr. SOWLER inquired if Mr. James meant to bring on Mr.
Conway's case ?
Mr. JAMES.—No.
Mr. SOWLER.—Why not)
Mr. JAMES.—Because I don't choose : I never tell my
reasons.

The nest case was an information against Charles Melville,
who was charged, under the 10th George 11, with having per-
formed at the Liver Theatre, being an unlicensed place for
dramatic entertainments, a part called Monsieur Zephyr, in
a drama entitled the Pet of the Petticoats.

Mr. Melville pleaded not guilty.
Mr. JAMES opened the case by stating that Mr. Melville,
on the 19th December, performed the part of Monsieur Ze-
phyr in a drama entitled the Pet of the Petticoats; that he
did so in an unlicensed place of dramatic entertainment ; that
he should show by e‘idence that money was paid at thedoors ;
The Learned Counsel said that there was no necessity to
trace the money into the pockets of Mr. Melville; that it was
for Mr. Melville to show the authority of the Lord Chamber-
lain, or by letters patent permitted him to take part in a thea-
trical representation in the Liver Theatre.

Mr. Peter Godfrey Lloyds proved that the theatre was in
the parish of Liverpool ; he went there on the night in ques-
tion ; saw the persons enter, who paid for their admission ;
there was a stage, pit, boxes, and gallery, in all theatres;
saw the Pet of the Petticoats; does not know Mr. Melville
personally.

Cross-examined by Mr. SOWLER.—Is the prompter at the
Theatre Royal ; has been there in that situatipn for 27 years;
they do not play unlicensed pieces at the Theatre Royal;
they might have done so formerly.
Mr. SOWLER.—DO you remember the mutiny at the Nore ?
Mr. JAMES objected to the question as irrelevant.
Mr. SOWLER contended that he bad a right to put what
questions he pleased in order to test the credibility of the wit-
ness. The Court coincided with Mr. James.

Cross-examination continued.—Was requested to attend
by Mr. Garnett, to see what was performed, not for laying
any information, The pit was not tilled : it filled up in the
course of the evening. He went because he had nothing to
do. The Theatre-royal was closed all that week.
Miss Mary Anne Armstrong.—Knows the Liver. Saw the
Pet of the Petticoats in the month of Decenber last. Was
there three nights. There is a part in it called Mons. Zephyr.
Mr. Melville performed that character.
Cross-examined.—Has not given evidence any where else.
Has not been questioned by Mr. Hammond. Was not in-
structed by Mr. Hammond what to say. Witness went on
to say that she had belonged to the company of the Liver
Theatre, but she sought an engagement, of her own accord,
at the Theatre-royal, and was accepted.
Mr. SOWLER put certain questions to the witness, with the
apparent view of eliciting from her how she was employed at
the Liver Theatre on the night in question.
Mr. JAMES enjoined her to be cautious how she answered
any questions that might criminate herself.
Mr. SOWLER objected to the interruption, but, on an ap-
peal to the Court by Mr. JAMES, the CHAIRMAN also cau.
tioned the witness.

Mr. SOWLER put other questions, which appeared to have
the same tendency, when the young lady declined to answer,
and Mr. JAMES observed that he would not, on any account,
endeavour to entrap a witness.
Mr. SOWLER characterised Mr. James's interruption as
impertinent.

Mr. JAMES said it was his duty to caution the witness.
Mr. SOWLER, for the defence, said that he submitted to
the Court that no evidence had been brought forward what-
ever against the defendant that he had performed for hire,
gain, or reward. In the first place, there was no evidence
whatever that the money at the door had gone into the pockets
of Mr. Melville. The Bench should remember that this was
a penal information, and that every circumstance ought to be
clearly proved, and quoted the acts of Parliament touching
the law of the case.

Mr. JAMES rose to address the court, but Mr. SOWLER
insisted that the learned gentleman had no right to address
the court, as he (Mr. Sowler) had not called any witnesses,
Mr. JAMES contended successfully that he had a right to
address the court on the point of law raised by Mr. Sowler.
Mr. James said they had evidence that money was paid at the
door, and here was only one person brought forward who had
acted on the occasion. Mr. James quoted other sections of
the act, and some authorities in support of his views.
Mr. SOWLER said, that Mr. James treated the case in a
very authoritative and judicial manner. " Sic vole sic jubeo,
slat pro ratione voluntas"—the acts of parliament quoted
had no more to do with the present case than Julius Caesar's
corduroy breeches had to do with the breeches of the guns
on the fort. The fact was, that these acts of parliament
were framed by Walpole, to prevent the possibility of any
thing being represented obnoxious to the king or the govern-
ment at the time.

The magistrates, having retired for about ten minutes, re-
turned, the chairman stating it was their opinion that a con-
viction must take place.
The next information was against Mrs. Fitzwilliam, for
having acted Paul; in the " Pet of the Petticoats," on the
22nd of December last. The defendant pleaded not guilty. •
Mr. JAMES opened the case with a few remarks.
Thomas Connor, the stage-door keeper at the Theatre
Royal, examined, and gave similar testimony as in the other
cases in which he appeared as a witness.
Benjamin Jones went into the gallery on the 22nd of De-
cember. Knows the defendant. Is a painter at the Theatre
Royal. Has seen Mrs. Fitzwilliam play the same part at the
Theatre Royal. Can't say how many times. Was asked to
go by Mr. Garnett. Went to Mr. Garnett by Mr. Clarke's
direction. Mr. Clarke is the late lessee of the Theatre Royal.
Received 3s. Was not told to go into any particular place.
Never had any conversation with Mr. Hammond on the sub-
ject of these informations ; nor with Mr. Clarke.
Mr. JAMBS stated, this was his case.

Mr. SOWLER, in reply, denounced the proceedings as
unjust and tyrannical ; and said that they had been instituted
for the purpose of putting money into the pockets of the pro-
prietors of the Theatre Royal, and that there was no evidence
to show that Mrs. Fitzwilliam had acted for hire, gain, or
reward.

The CHAIRMAN said it was of no use to appeal to their
sympathies ; it was a point of law, and they must convict in
a penalty of £5O.

The CHAIRMAN inquired if Mr. James meant to go on ?
Mr. .
JAMES —Yes, sir.
..._.

The next information was against Mrs. Copeland, for
having, on the 20th of December, acted the part of Ann
Bradford, in the drama of " Jonathan Bradford."'
Mr. JAMES, in opening the case, said he felt called upon
to make a few observations in this case, from what had just
fallen from his learned friend : in which he stated that they
were actuated by pecuniary or vindictive motives in their pro-
ceedings, or that they had a wish to persecute the poor
actors. He felt quite sure that the gentlemen he represented
were of too high a standing to deserve such motives imputed
to them : and that, in the case of Mr. Hoskins, it would be
seen that they were willing to meet the matter with fairness.
They wanted their rights ; and have them they would. He
was glad to see that his 'caned friend, since they last had the
pleasure of meeting him, had so industriously applied himself
to the case, for his speech smelt very strong of the lamp.
He was for the first time made acquainted with the fact that
Julius Caesar wore corderoy breeches; and his quotation in
some strange language showed that his studies had been pro-
fitable. He, for his part, did not profess to know the mean-
ing of the quotation, as he admitted his want of knowledge in
the dead languages; but the charges of tyranny and merce-
nary motives were utterly undeserved. All his clients
wanted was their privileges ; they did not want to take money
out of the actors' pockets ; but if they infringed upon their
rights and broke the law, they must stand the consequences.
He would offer this advice to his learned Friend, and he would
recommend him not to give his opinion again as a man so
freely as well as well as an advocate, because some time or
another he might be placed in a different position, and his
opinions then expressed might be remembered injuriously to
him. Mr. dames, in an able address, disclaimed with indig-
nation the idea that these proceedings were instigated by
unworthy motives.

Edward Williams gave evidence of the acting of the piece.
Mr. Conway—ls acquainted with Mrs. Copeland; knows
the play of " Jonathan Bradford." (Informations having been
laid against Mr. Conway, he was cautioned as to his evidence.)
llas seen it peformed. Knows the part of Ann Bradford ; 14:s
seen the defendant perform the part. No one has pellormed
the part but the defendant in the month pf December.
Might or might not have known of any body else play the
part. Was in the theatre on the 20th December; saw Mrs.
Copeland perform it that cyening: knows only one Mrs.
Copeland in Liverpoc%).

Cross-exaw—inerLlpes not know the lady in question
intim;tely. Imagines she is the wife of her husband. (A
laugh.) Supposes she is the wife of the manager. Had
received a paper called an information. Uad not instructed
any one to appear for him.
Mr. JAMES.—Why, my learned friend stated that he was
retained.

Mr. SOWLER.—Mr. Norris told him he would have to
defend.

Cross-examination continued.—Professes to be an actor.
Has an engagement at the Theatre-Royal. A disagreement,
amounting to a personal rudeness, led to his applying to Mr.
Hammond for an engagement. Was b►•onght there by a
subpoena. No. one had said anything to him elsewhere on
the subject.

Re-examined by Mr. JADIES.—Has no doubt that Mrs.
Copeland played the part in•question on the day mentioned.
Mr. SowLEla said that his learned friend appeared greatly
to dwell upon his (Mr. Sowler's) inexperience. He thought
that since the days of Pitt that had ceased to be a sin ; but
it was unfair to build up a natural defect into a sin in his
person. His learned friend might plume himself upon his
moderation, but he appeared to have an excess of it—and
well he might, since they had the power of oppression ; and
he could not restrain his feelings of disgust in this case, as,
not content with mulcting the husband, they had singled out
the wife also. Mr. Sowler attempted to show that, as the
wife of Mr. Copeland, his client was not liable, she having
acted under her husband's directions, and, control.
The bench overruled this paint, as haying been lately set-
tled decisively, and con%icted. Mrs. COpelapd in the petkaAky
of X. 50.

Informatiot4 were riext.read,against. Mr. Slpap.„ For having
acted at the Amphitleatre the part of .#;ixodlitva, in a drama
entitled "I V° Alraschid,'
Wished: to, kno.w whether he stood in a worse
position that day than, 1e did on the former occasion, as he
daderstgoif were other witnesses subpoened against
hiin ?: •