Blitz v. Toovey
City of New York Municipal Court
Action by Walter A. and Mary Blitz, his wife, against Henry Toovey, for money alleged to be due plaintiffs as salary for performing certain juggling feats in defendant’s museum; the husband doing what is known in the business as the “fire act, ” in which he pretended to eat fire, while the wife did the “glass act,” which consisted of walking with naked feet on broken glass.
Read the full summary
Action by Walter A. and Mary Blitz, his wife, against Henry Toovey, for money alleged to be due plaintiffs as salary for performing certain juggling feats in defendant’s museum; the husband doing what is known in the business as the “fire act, ” in which he pretended to eat fire, while the wife did the “glass act,” which consisted of walking with naked feet on broken glass. The husband wrote to defendant’s manager soliciting an engagement for himself and wife, and saying as to his wife: “This is the only lady in the world who walks, jumps, and grinds broken glass to powder beneath her naked…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, C. J.
The plaintiffs fall within the class of professionals commonly known as “jugglers” or “mountebanks,” and their exhibitions were declared illegal. 3 Rev. St. (7th Ed.)p. 1958, §1; Code Crim. Proc., § 899; Barb. Crim. Law, 594. They were regarded as calling people from their regular business to spend their time to no purpose, and their money foolishly, if not viciously. Downing v. Blanchard, 12 Wend. 383. Circus companies and negro minstrelsy were tolerated, if licensed, not otherwise. Thurber v. Sharp, 13 Barb. 627; Downing v. Blanchard, supra. In the city of New York, all such performances…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Downing v. BlanchardNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Thurber & Atkin v. SharpNew York Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hatch v. HallWashington Supreme Court · 1907