field, C. J., says, " But if any body of men were to go to the theatre with the settled intention of hissing an actor, or even of damning a piece, there can be no doubt that such a deliberate and preconcerted scheme would amount to a conspiracy, and that the persons concerned in it might be brought to punishment." He also argued that, however the public might have a right either by hissing or otherwise to express their opinions of an actor, with respect to his merits or demerits as an actor, the public could have no right to hiss any actor on account of any dislike that might be entertained of his private character or conduct apart from his performance on the stage. It was proved that on the 13th of February, 1843, the plaintiff appeared on the stage of Covent Garden Theatre for the purpose of playing the character of Hamlet, and that there was a great disturbance, and so much hissing, yelling, and noise, that the plaintiff was obliged to desist from performing the character. It was proved that both the defendants were in the theatre and took an active part in the disturbance. It was proposed by Humfrey, for the defendant, to put a copy of the Satirist newspaper into the hand of Mr. Stevens, a witness for the plaintiff, and to ask him if he had read it. Shee, Serjt., for the plaintiff.-I submit that the Satirist newspaper and its contents, are not evidence in this action. Pr. 132; and 2 Chitty Cr. L. 494, it is stated, that the defendants were convicted and fined. The latter part of the statement, as to the fine, seems erroneous, as it not only appears from Dodsley's Ann. Reg. for 1775, p. 117, and from the London Chronicle of May 11, 1775, that no sentence was passed on the defendants, they consenting to pay Mr. Macklin his law ex penses, and to take 1007. worth of 1843. GREGORY v. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. 1843. GREGORY v. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK, Talfourd, Serjt., for the defendants.-I apprehend that this paper is receivable in evidence, as the question is, whether there was a preconcerted contrivance of the defendants on this occasion, or whether the uproar arose from the disgust of the audience at the appearance on the public stage of a person who, for many years, had indulged in a system of private libelling. Humfrey, on the same side.-We propose to shew that the libels contained in the different numbers of the Satirist are of such a nature, that no man who had written or published them could hope for a single moment to appear on the English stage, and that that which is here charged as being the effect of a conspiracy between the two defendants was, in reality, the unanimous feeling of the audience, arising from their knowledge of these infamous publications. TINDAL, C. J.-I cannot see how this evidence can be admissible without a plea of justification. I will receive evidence to shew that the expression of feeling did not arise from any previous act or combination of the defendants, but I cannot allow evidence to be given in of an indictable offence when the party has no previous intimation given him on the subject. The evidence was rejected. Talfourd, Serjt., addressed the jury for the defendants, and referred to the allegations in the fourth plea, and argued that those allegations must, for the purposes of this case, be taken as facts admitted by the plaintiff by reason of his having demurred to that plea. Shee, Serjt.-I submit that as no issue is taken in that plea, it ought not to be referred to. TINDAL, C. J.-I cannot prevent my brother Talfourd from referring to the fourth plea, because that plea is not only set forth in the Nisi Prius record, but the present jury are to try the issues found on that record, and also "to inquire what damages the plaintiff hath sustained on occasion of the premises whereof the Court hath given judgment for the said plaintiff," which is on this very plea. Talfourd, Serjt., further addressed the jury, and contended that the reason why the plaintiff was hissed was not from any conspiracy of the defendants, but because the feeling of the whole audience was against him on account of the libellous character of the articles in the Satirist newspaper. TINDAL, C. J., (in summing up).—This action is brought against the defendants for having conspired together in order to prevent the appearance of the plaintiff as an actor at Covent Garden Theatre; and in the declaration, two overt acts are stated, the first, that the defendants hired a number of other persons to engage in the same design, and, by their hissing and hooting, produced the effect intended by themselves in the conspiracy-the second, that the defendants joined in the hooting themselves. You will say whether upon the evidence you are satisfied that the defendants are guilty of the conspiracy charged, and, if you are, what amount of damages the plaintiff has sustained. The law on this subject lies in a narrow compass. There is no doubt that the public who go to a theatre have the right to express their free and unbiassed opinions of the merits of the performers who appear upon the stage, and I believe that no persons are more anxious that the public should have that right than the actors themselves, for if it were aid down that persons who exercised their free judg ments would be subject to actions for damages, not only would it be fatal to the actors on the stage, but it would prevent persons from frequenting the theatre at all. At the same time parties have no right to go to the theatre 1843. GREGORY v. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. 1843. GREGORY v. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. by a preconcerted plan to make such a noise that an actor, without any judgment being formed on his performance, should be driven from the stage by such a scheme, probably concocted for an unworthy purpose; and therefore it is only, if you can see by the evidence that has been given, that the two defendants had laid a preconcerted plan to deprive Mr. Gregory of the benefits which he expected to result from his appearance on the stage, that you ought to find a verdict against them. A distinction has been taken as to the right of the public to express their feelings as to an actor's private character when on the stage. It is not necessary that I should give any opinion on that point, as the question here is, whether these parties went to the theatre according to a scheme that had been laid to prevent an actor from appearing. I, therefore, reserve to myself the free exercise of my opinion on the other point, and I will state it whenever it shall become necessary. Verdict for the defendants. Shee, and Byles, Serjts., and Montagu Chambers, for the plaintiff. Talfourd, Serjt., Humfrey and Wordsworth, for the defendants. [Attornies-H. Wickens, and Vallance.] IN the ensuing Term, Shee, Serjt., applied for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, inasmuch as the Lord. Chief Justice, in his summing up, had not directed the jury that they might find a verdict against one defendant only, and also on the ground that the verdict was a verdict against evidence. He also applied for a venire de novo, on the ground that the jury had not assessed damages on that part of the record to which the demurrer applied. The Court, after taking time to consider, refused the rule as to the alleged misdirection, and as to the venire de novo; but granted a rule to shew cause, on the ground only of the verdict being against evidence, which was, after argument, discharged. 1843. GREGORY v. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. Sitting in London in Michaelmas Term, 1843. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. BEDFORD V. FORBES and Others. SSUE directed by the Court of Common Pleas, under the stat. 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 1, to try the right of a vendor to recover back a deposit on the purchase of certain real property sold by auction. An outstanding docketed judg ment not regis tered pursuant to the provisions of the stats. 1 & 2 s. 19, and 2 & It appeared that the plaintiff had attended the auction Vict. at which the estate in question was sold, and it having 3 Vict. c. 11, been knocked down to him, he paid the deposit into the hands of the auctioneer, and signed the usual contract; and that after that, an abstract of the title having been sent to him, several objections were made to the title, one of which was, that there was an outstanding docketed judgment for £1500 against the vendor; but this judgment had not been registered in pursuance of the provisions of the stats. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, sect. 19, and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, ss. 2 and 3. It did not appear what the precise date of the judgment was, but it was assumed by the vendee, and not denied by the vendor, that the date was before the stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 came into operation. On this ground (with others) the vendee claimed to rescind the contract, and demanded a return of the deposit from the auctioneer, which being refused, the vendee brought an VOL. I. D NP.. ss. 2 and 3, is not a valid objection to the title of a ven. dor on the sale of realty. |