MUSIC HALL TURN STOPPED

Evening Star, Issue 21503, 30 August 1933, Page 10

MUSIC HALL TURN STOPPED

QUESTION OF DECENCY The question of whether a music hall turn was objectionable was argued before Mr Justice Du Parcq and a jury in the King’s Bench Division, when three American comedians and dancers who were engaged to appear, at the London Pavilion, but were -dismissed after the first day, brought an action for alleged breach of contract. They were Sydney, Harry, and Samuel Sonken, professionally known as the Three Slate Brothers. They claimed damages against Mr Ernest Remnant, licensee of the theatre. Mr Remnant, in defence, pleaded ’ that under the contract any artist using vulgarity, words having a double meaning, or any objectionable gesture on the stage should be liable to instant dismissal. It was also pleaded for the defence that the plaintiffs made vulgar noises, referred by vulgar words or by. words having a double meaning to marriage infidelity and birth'control. Mr C. J. Conway, K.C.,' for the plaintiffs, said they came to England from the United States at the beginning of the year, and were engaged to appear at the London Pavilion for two weeks at £l3O a week. On March 13 they gave four performances, but on the following day Mr Remnant, in a letter, refused to allow them to perform, and repudiated the agreement. “At a music hall one does not expect .to hear the sort of language that one would hear at a Sunday school,” said. Mr Conway, “ but these men were dismissed summarily because their performances were supposed .to be indelicate and vulgar.” Mr Sydney Sonken, giving evidence, said, in reply to Mr R. A. Willes (for Mr Remnant), th t he did not know that one of the acts he and his brothers performed had been banned in this country by the Lord Chamberlain. Further cross-examined, Mr Sonken said a joke which could be taken two ways was always considered the funniest. His Lordship; X suppose it has this advantage : that if someone says it is a vulgar joke you can say: “That is the fault of your low. mind.” (Laughter.) Mr, Henry Sherek, theatrical variety agent, said he saw the Slate performance, and did not consider it “incurably indecent.” Mr George Alfred Titman,' first clerk at the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who attended on subpoena, said he had seen the script of the Three Slate Brothers’ performance. In various forms two of the sketches had been submitted to the censor from time to time, and had always been banned. One of these sketches was banned as being suggestive. " VULGAR AND SUGGESTIVE.” Mr Remnant, giving evidence, said he was responsible for the productions at the London Pavilion. On March 13 he saw the performance of the Three Slate Brothers. “I was so disgusted,” ho said. “1 thought it was vulgar, suggestive, and indecent.” He thought the remarks made to the mannequins (who appeared in a kind of cabaret scene with the plaintiffs) suggestive and insolent, and as each girl went by ihe 'really was concerned as to what would bo said to the next one. “ 1 came to the conclusion,” Mr Remnant said, “ that the Slate Brothers could not alter their act because it was clear to mo that they depended for their laughs on a mixture of vulgarity and indecency. They did this with such assurance and persistence ■that it was obvious to mo that this was their stock-in-trade.” Mr John Southern, general manager of the London Pavilion, said he entered into the contract for the engagement of the Three Slate Brothers. Almost invariably American variety artists were inclined- to be rtaher vulgar, and so he warned them he did not want anything that was “ blue ” or vulgar. ■ ’ ’ “ After seeing their act,” he said, “ I was frightened as to what was going to happen. It was so disgusting. From beginning to end it was indecent and vulgar.” Mr Arthur Gibbons, licensee and manager of the Royalty Theatre, said he saw the Three Slate Brothers’ performance at the London Pavilion, and considered •it extremely vulgar. One was afraid of what was coming next. Mr Justice Du Parcq, in his summing up. said if the Siato Brothers did give expression on the stage to any vulgarity or words having a double meaning or used objectionable gestures they were liable to instant dismissal. The jury might not be able to define vulgarity, but they would probably know it when they heard it. They should adopt the standard of decency of reasonable men and women—not of people who were shocked at anything or of a person who was never shocked at anything.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, who were given judgment, with costs.