The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

•
present at the' first rehearsal. A idiearsal was appointed
for Monday, the 14th of March, by witness's direction,
Witness put up " a call" for a rehearsal on that
day, at ten o'clock, and he was in the theatre at
that time. Mr. Raymond was there between ten and
eleven o'clock. Does not think that the London per-
formers were there at the time, and there was a delay in
bringing on the rehearsal, in consequence, as witness be-
lieved, of some notices to the London performers. Remem-
bered the London actors coming into the theatre that morn-
ing. Saw Mr. Raymond, whilst they were there, with
them before the rehearsal took place. Mr. Raymond has a
private room in the theatre, into which he and the three
London actors retired before the rehearsal. They remained
there a quarter of an hour. The rehearsal took place, and
Mr. Raymond was occasionally on the stage during the re-
hearsal. The " Maid of Croissey" was rehearsed. It is
a drama or entertainment of the stage—such as is usually
exhibited at licensed theatres. The " Maid ot" Croissey"
was performed at night, and the London actors took
part in that performance. Mr. Raymond was on the stage
that night ; and he believed he appeared before the curtain
to the audience as the manager of the theatre, but could not
say positively unless he saw a bill, which appeared on the
following morning, Tuesday.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by
Mr. HENDERSON, but without his testimony being affected.
Re-examined.—When there was no treasurer, the manager
generally paid the performers himself. Witness was engaged
and paid by Mr. Raymond. Mr.Raymond,l,vhen he appeared
before the audience, read something from a paper, the whole
or part of which appeared in print the next morning. The
bill was here produced, and the witness said be could now
undertake to say, it was on the night of the 14th of March
Mr. Raynard appeared on the stage. The bill contained a
portion of what Mr. Raynard read:, This bill was then put
in and read, but we do not repeat it here, as it has already
appeared in the STANDARD. Mr. Raymond gave directions
to the stage manager.
Peter Godfrey Lloyds, prompter at the Theatre Royal,
proved the performance of the " Maid of Croissey," at the
" Royal Liver Theatre, on the evening of the 14th of March.
Witness went into the gallery, and paid sixpence for his ad-
mission. Mademoiselle Celeste, Mr. Webster and Mr.
Strickland performed in the drama.
Cross-examined.—The " Maid of Croissey" is not a five
act play ; it is a two act drama.
John Connor, a printer at the Mail office, was called, but
objected to by Mr. Henderson. As it appeared that he was
a rate-payer, and that the act of parliament says that no rate-
payer should give evidence in such a case where the penalty
exceeded £2O; his evidence was rejected. _ _

Mr. Thomas Carter said he was 'a
proprietor in the Liver-
pool Mail Company; but it appearing that the same objec-
tion applied to him as to the last witness, his testimony was
rejected.
Thomas Carter, bill deliverer to the Liver Theatre, said he
was employed and paid by Mr. Raymond.
Philip Frederick Garnett, a clerk to Mr. Lloyd, was next
called, and he proved the performance of the " Maid of
Croissey," on the evening of the 14th of March. This wit-
ness proved the service of the notice of the intention to com-
mence these proceedings on Mr. Raymond, if the perform-
ances were continued.

John Fogg, box-keeper at the Liver, was called ; but being
a ratepayer his evidence was rejected on the same ground as
Mr. Connor and Mr. Carter.

John Reynolds and Mrs. Whiteman were rejected on the
like grounds.
Mr. WARREN.—
(Laughter.)
Henry Stewart, an artist, said he was in the pit of the
Liver on the night in question. The " Maid of Croissey"
was performed, and he was very much delighted. Mr. Ray-
mond came forward on the stage, and read a paper to the
auditory.
Dr. BROWN said this was the case.
Mr. HENDERSON said he had two objections to take,
which he apprehended would be fatal; but he would con-
dense them into one. He submitted that, in a case like this,
where the information alleged that this play had been acted
without the authority of letters patent, the onus of proving
that allegation lay not upon the defendant, but upon the
person who preferred the charge. The learned counsel con-
tended at some length that the current of legal authority
was in favour of his objections.
Mr. W ARREN followed upon the same side, and quoted
several cases.

" They come like shadows, so depart."

Dr. BROWNE and Mr. JAMES replied, and after a few
minutes' consideration, the bench overruled the objection.
Mr. HENDERSON then addressed the court on the general
question, and contended the case had not been established,
and that these proceedings had been instituted for the pur-
pose of crushing a rival establishm'ent.
The magistrates retired to consider their decision ; and
after an absence of ten minutes they returned into court, and
fined Mr. Raymond £5O. The other parties, by agreement
are to pay £25 to the charities.