Dramatic critics will be a little alarmed by a verdict
given on Thursday. Mr. Melford wrote a play called The Maelstrom, which was acted in April, 1892, in the Shaftesbury Theatre. The critic of the People, besides other unfavourable remarks, said the play was " hooted " off the stage, and the action ultimately turned on the accuracy of that expression. It was shown that the critics of the great dailies were almost as severe, and in Court they justified the expression "hooting," though the critic of the Times, Mr. Nisbet, thought it would be used only by an "emotional "—we suppose he meant " sensationar—writer. The general effect of the experts' evidence was that there was much derisive laughter and "boohooing," but not exactly hooting in its popular sense. The Judge, Mr. Justice Day, charged with a leaning to the defendants ; but the jury thought " hooting " too strong a word, and gave Mr. Melford the verdict and £50. The verdict is a little absurd, as the critic could have hurt Mr. Melford much more by saying his play was received with noisy ridicule ; but technically we fancy the jury were in the right. We should say the definition of " hooting" has changed, and is not now sither derision or derisive laughter, or even " boohooing "— which is, we suppose, the " Oh, oh !" of the House of 'Commons slightly vulgarised—but "audible and angry derision." The audience in this case was not angry.
Previous page
