TEST CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 171, 22 July 1931, Page 10

TEST CASE.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENT PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. SECRETARY FINED £6. CONSENT NOT OBTAINED. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the Magistrate's Court this morning by Mr. W. R, McKean, S.M., in the test case brought against A. D. Wylie, secre- < tary of the Auckland Philosophical Society by the Auckland City Council, to determine whether certain Sunday ; gatherings in theatres are legal. The defendant was convicted and fined £6 and costs. ! The Auckland City Council charged Wylie with a breach of section. 309 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, providing that: "No concert or entertainment of any kind, .which is open to ~ the public, whether by the purchase of \ tickets or otherwise, shall be given on , Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day , without the written consent of the i council and then only subject to such •; conditions, in every respect, as the coun- \ cil may impose." i Advertised Programme Followed. In his judgment, the magistrate said , that the defendant was the secretary of a society called the Auckland Philosophical Society. It was not incorporated and its main object,, according to a leaflet, was the "enlightenment of the people." It had arranged a service of what Avere called "Sunday lectures" at the Civic Theatre. The leaflet set out 1 tliat the lunds accruing from the lectures, over .the costs of organisation and office expenses, were devoted to the relief of unemployment. To what extent contributions to unemployment, relief had been made was not disclosed. On Sunday, June 14, continued Mr. McKean, two traffic officers employed by the Auckland City Council attended what they called an entertainment. The programme advertised was followed and, ; in addition, a "trail" of the picture t.o be ehown the fallowing Sunday was screened. The defendant, Wylie,,during the evening, announced the picture for the following Sunday, and the name of the lecturer. i The consent of the Auckland City Council to hold an entertainment was ' not obtained. Definition of Entertainment. Mr. Slipper, for defendant, said the magistrate, had contended that there was no definition in the Act of "enter- . tainment," and that, as the main item of interest on the programme was the ; lecture, there was no entertainment within the meaning of the Act. "The I mere statement by_ a promoter that the main item of interest in a three hours' \ programme was a lecture that ocdupied thirty minutes was not in itself sufficient to fix the real nature of the proceedings," said ,the magistrate. "If the dominant feature was amusement, the . proceedings wdiild properly be called entertainment. In the absence of . a definition the word had to be used in the. proper sense. Unless I am completely to disregard the accepted meaning of the word I must hold that entertainment was the dominant feature of the proceedings, and that instruction by a lecture, agreeable or disagreeable, according to one's point of view, was subordinate to the main attraction. The fact that instruction is given does not prevent •what would otherwise be an amusement from coming within the definition of entertainment. Breach of Statute. *It is contended that if there was an entertainment, the defendant is not liable. The defendant, however, admits that he was in charge of the entertainment on June 14, and is the manager of the entertainment side of the activities of the society. He is entitled to a/salary of £5 a week front the society. It may be that other members of the society are also, liable, but that ..fact does not relieve ithe defendant. "Wyiie says," continued Mr. McKean, "thit he wjent to the Town Hall with a view - to endeavouring to obtain the consent of the council to the holding of the entertainment, bu^, .then- decided not to make an application for;, consent. He thought t3\at the. consent; would not be given, and; as manager of the entertainment side of the society, he decided to proceed -without referring to the, council.. "With the question of permitting Sunday night entertainments, I am not con. cerned," concluded Mr. McKean. "I am satisfied thai there was .a breach of the etatuteV and that it was not committed in ignorance." : ~