Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-04-20

still vaultiDg; dancing hornpipe oe1tereusiy
to music by the defendant OH the tight rope,
accompanied with display of colours-turn-
ing somerset from the rope by defendant
Defendan. appeared to be the principal, and
was present during most Of the performances;
4 or 500 persons were assembled Here the
testimony on the part ofthe plaintiffs closed.
The defendant then offered evidence to show
that the circus was private property, standing
on the land of Mr.. Samuel OlcoIt; was inclos-
ed, the doors furnished with locks, and no per-
sons permitted to be present at the perform
ances except those who purchased tickets He
also offered evidence to show that no stage was
erected in the circus. Several witnesses were
introduced for the purpose of proving that the
feats performed at the circus did not constitute
tumbling in the proper sense OF the term
The case was argued on the part OF the PLAIN
tiffs by w. w. Ellsworth and /. ;. Williams,
Esqs and by ]. w. Edwards and D. Daggett,
Esqrs. for the defendant.
1t was claimed on the part of the defendant,
LIST. That previous conviction OF the offence
CHARGED in a criminal prosecution Of this kind
was necessary to recovery. Cd. That the place
where the feats were performed was not a
public stage or place within the statute. Sd.
That the action could not be sustained for want
of certain rule Of damages. 4th. That the
acts proved did not constitute tuDlbling or rope
dancing within the statute. 5th. That the ex-
preston "feats Of uncommon dexterity and a
gility of body" was SO vague and indefinite as
not to authorize recovery on any state offacts
which would not sustain criminal prosecution
at common law.
The court charged the jury that previous
lain bu hp
not necessary 10 a recovery; that upon the facts
circus where the feats were performed was a
public place within the. statute, that it was
competent for the jury to determine the forfei-
ture within the limits prescribed by the statute;
that upon the facts, testified by the plaintiffs
witness, and not controverted by the defendant,
the feats performed by the defendant on the
tight rope, constituted, in The opinion Of the
court, rope dancing within the statute; that by
tumbling as used in the statute, the legislature
meant all such confessions, circumvolutions *
positions of body as are the result Of art and
practice, and as are designed or adapted to sur
prise or amuse spectators; that the clause of
the statute relating to feats Of uncommon dex-
terity or agility Of body, was sufficiently def
mite and precise to sustain an action, and in
cluded acts which are not offences at common
law, and that by the use of the phrase the legis-
lature intended to prohibit all uncommon or
extraordinary acts or feats Of body not necessa-
rily comprehended in either of the terms pre-
viously used, and which in their performance
require great and unusual dexterity and agility
and are designed for and adapted to the amuse-
ment of spectators
The verdict of the jury found the defendant
guilty ofrope-dancing, and of exhibiting feats
Of uncommon dexterity and agilil. of body,
with a forfeiture of sixty dollars. Courdnt.