among theatre-goers. A man in Philadel phia took a front seat in a theatre to witness an exhibition on the trapeze by some star acrobats. One of the performers missed his hold, and ere he struck bottom, hit and in jured the onlooker in question. The for wardness of the plaintiff was not allowed to defeat his right to recover damages for the injury occasioned by this falling star. (Fox v. Dougherty, 2 W.N.C. 417.) On the other hand when the bust of Benjamin Franklin (which was being used for decora tive purposes in a public hall in Boston at the reception of the Russian Grand Duke Alexis), on the singing of the "Old Hun dred " came down in a rushing manner upon the shoulder of a lady right below, doing her considerable injury, she asked the courts for other and more healing damages in vain.
If the lady had kenned all about it (as Mr. Irving Browne would probably say), and had shown negligence on the part of the city, in the arrangement of the bust, the ver dict might have been . otherwise. (Kendall v. City of Boston, 118 Mass. 234.) Lord Mansfield gave it as his opinion that the proprietors of a theatre have a right to manage their property in their own way and fix what prices of admission they think most for their own advantage; so it is consolatory to the poor fathers of large families to be in formed by the same learned judge that theatres are not absolute necessaries of life, and any person may stay away who does not approve of the way in which they are managed. (Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Camp, page 363.)
