Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUNDAY PICTURES

A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

BOROUGH COUNCIL’S LIABILITY.

The police have taken further steps against the continuance of Sunday pictures in defiance of the law. At the Magistrate’s Court tills morning, after Arthur Beban, manager of the pictures ' had been convicted and fined the usual. £1 for keeping open the Town Hall on Sunday, June 11, Henry Hawkins (the pianist), Henry Jones (the operator) and Wm. Steel (a member of the audience), were charged with aiding and abetting Beban in the commission of an oence punishable on summary conviction. The case, in which decision was reserved, was interesting as the question was raised whether in the event of conviction it would not _be possible to proceed against the Borough Council and ratepayers who leased the hall, the members of the audience who attended and the newspapers which advertised the performance. Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for the defendants and pleaded not guilty. Senr.-Sergt. McCarthy prosecuted. Senr.-Sergt. McCarthy said that the charges arose out of what was known as the “Sunday picture” cases. The

offence of which Beban had just been convicted was committed on June 11. Hawkins and Jones 'were in the regular employ of the Peerless Pictures and Steel was one of the patrons who paid on going in. The argument of the police was that in accordance with Section 53 of the Justices of the Pence Act, or with Section 184 of same Act, they had aided in procuring the commission of the offence. Jn Du Cross v. Lamborn, in 1911 ft had been held that it did not matter whether the defendant aided and abetted or whether he committed the offence. —he was equally guilty. . Cojitinuinm the Senr.-Sergt. said that the offence committed by Beban was one that would not be committed without the assistance of another, as the business could not bo carried on without such assistance. Those remarks applied particularly to Stee. for no pictures would be shown without an_audience. The audience went in to see the pictures and hear the music, and the pictures were thrown on tEe ’screen by the operator and the music was under the control of the pianist. Quoting cases illustrative of the effect of mens rea, he stated that his contention was that these hien having taken part in the showing oi the pictures they were aiding and abetting Beban. x Senr.-Sergt. McCarthy tiffin gave formal evidence of the Folding of the entertainment in tho Town Hall on June 11- ... Mr. Hannan quoted definitions from the “Laws of England,” and said that the whole question of aiding and abetting rested on the intention of the people who were there. They went there for the purpose of amusement only. That of course, might not apply to tho employees of the firm. Strange to say, although the Act had been ™ force 400 years there were very few authorities on it. Th e offence with which Beban was charged was “keeping open” for the purpose of transacting business and although the defendants helped him in his. performance, they did not aid or abet him in “keeping open” the place. ■ Mr. Hannan quoted illustrations of his point that Beban was charged not with transacting business, but with “keeping open” the hall. It was necessary for two people to complete the transaction-— one to sell and one to buy. In this case the manager was charged with “keeping open” ; it was no offence in New Zealand to transact business., If all Greymouth decided to turn “wowser” and refused to attend the pictures the mere fact that Beban “kept open” the Town Hall would still make him liable. If the charge succeeded, there would be no limit to the number of persons who would be charged with aiding and abetting. Tho newspapers who advertised the performance and the Borough Council and the ratepayers would be liable! “That is so,” admitted the Senr.Sergt., “ and I would very muc} like to see the Borough Council ; brought in!” (Laughter). Senr.-Sergt. McCarthy said the mater was brought before his Worship ( merely as a test case. The Magistrate said he would like a little time to look up his authorities. He would reserve decision until Monday next.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19220619.2.26

Bibliographic details

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 June 1922, Page 5

Word Count
697

SUNDAY PICTURES Greymouth Evening Star, 19 June 1922, Page 5

SUNDAY PICTURES Greymouth Evening Star, 19 June 1922, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert