ances of the stage therein, who were to be the servants of his Majesty's dearly beloved brother James, Duke of York, and to take and receive of such as shall resort to see or hear any such plays, scenes, and entertain ments whatsoever, such sum or sums of money as either have accustomably been given and taken in the like kind, or shall be thought reasonable by him or them in re gard of the great expense of scenes, music, and such new decorations as have not been formerly used. The patent then prohibits the exhibiting of plays by all others besides this company and a company to be estab lished by T. Killigrew, Esq., and called The King and Queen's Company; directs that no actor ejected by one of these companies shall be received into the other, without the consent of the company whereof he was a member, signified under hand and seal; grants permission for women's parts to be represented by men; requires such plays to be purged of all scandalous and offensive passages, and Concludes with a non obstante clause giving full effect to the patent, " any law, statute, act, ordinance, proclamation, provision, or restriction, or any other matter, cause, or thing whatsoever to the contrary, in any wise notwithstanding" (2 Camp. 359, note A). So much for the history of the theatre from a legal point of view; now, for a con sideration of, Firstly, the respective rights of theatre-goers, of theatrical managers and "sik lik persones," as Queen Mary's statute puts it; secondly, rows between managers and actors. Firstly, As to the rights of the theatre goers and the managers. If one has a ticket of admission, has he the right to get into and stop in the theatre, even though the manager wishes to prevent? Mr. Taylor, in 1799, became the possessor, for a valuable consideration, of a silver ticket, which en titled him to free admission to the King's Theatre, in the Haymarket, London, and to see all operas, exhibitions, and other public
entertainments (concerts of ancient music excepted) there to be held during the twentyone years stretching from June, 1792 to June, 18 18. Mr. Taylor attended the per formances as his soul listed, without let or hindrance, until January 17, 181 3, when the proprietor refused to let him enter without fresh payment. The plaintiff rushed into court, and got a decision to the effect that a beneficial license to be exercised upon land is valid, although not granted by deed or in writing; and that such a license granted for twenty-one years, for valuable consideration, and acted upon, cannot be countermanded; and, lastly, that he was entitled to exercise the license granted him, and evidenced by his silver ticket, and enter the theatre without pay, and that he had a right to sue the hostile manager for dis turbing him in his right. (Taylor v. Waters, 7 Taunt. 373). This decision seems clear enough, but Mr. Moak lays down the law thus : " The manager of a theatre who has sold a ticket for a seat at a performance, may revoke the license granted by the sale of the ticket, and is not a wrong-doer in refusing to allow the holder to occupy the seat; at furthest he is liable only for breach of the contract." (Moak's Underhill on Torts, p. 446). To maintain his position he quotes Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. 838, as overruling Taylor v. Waters; Macrae v. March, 12 Gray, 211; Burton v. Scherpf, 1 Allen, 133; Waterman on' Trespass, Sec. 1793; Cooley on Torts, 285, 306. The trouble that Wood got into was this : he was fond of horseracing, and he bought a ticket of admission to the grand-stand, to view the Doncaster races, some fifty years ago. He paid a guinea for his ticket, and was in the en closure around the stand, to which the ticket admitted him, when he was spied by the Earl of Eglintoun, the steward, who, on account of some alleged shady transaction, ordered his myrmidon, Leadbitter, to ask him (Wood) to leave, and to tell him that
