SUNDAY PICTURES

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 June 1922, Page 5

SUNDAY PICTURES

PATRONS HELD LIABLE.

EMPLOYEES ALSO CONVICTED

It was held by Mr W. Meldrum, at the Magistrate’s Court, to-day, that members of the public who attend Sunday pictures held in defiance of the law, and those who are in the employ of a person holding such entertainments, are liable under Section 53 of the Justice of the Peace Act for aiding and abetting the proprietor in the commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

A test case, under the Act, was instituted by the Police at the Magistrate’s Court last Monday, when William Steel, a member of the audience, Henry Hawkins, the pianist, and Henry Jones, the operator, were proceeded against for aiding and abetting Arthur Beban, manager of the Peer-

less Pictures, in illegally keeping open the Town Hall on Sunday, June 11 for the purpose of transacting business therein, contrary to section 17 of the Police Offences Act. Decision was reserved by Mr Meldrum, S.M., until to-day when the Magistrate convicted each defendant and ordered him to pay costs. Judgment was delivered as follows: —

‘‘lt is quite clear that the support given by the public in money contributions is the inducement to Beban to continue showing on Sundays and that if the public ceased to pay he would cease to show. It was 1 held in Rex v. Young that if spectators are present at a duel assisting and encouraging by their presence when the fatal shot is fired they are in law guilty of murder. This decision has been modified in Rex v. Coney, which is the case relied upon by Mr Hannan. There seven out of ten judges hold that mere 1 presence at a fight does not justifiv the inference as a matter of law that the persons so present are guilty of an assault in aiding and abetting'in such fight. The ground on which the majority of the Court proceeded was thus put by Mr Justice Cave : ‘Where presence may be entirely accidental, it is not even evidence of aiding and abetting where presence is prima facie, not accidental, it is evidence, but no more than evidence, for the jury.’ In SteeFs case, his presence was intentional. Beban had advertised in the public Press his intention to give a performance on June 11. It was a matter op common knowledge in Greymouth that Beban in spite of successive convictions was continuing his Sunday pictures. Steel wont to the Town Hall to see the pictures and with others of the public paid knowing that in paying he was supplying Beban wit h the necessary inducement to show and continue showing on Sundays. Though it is not necessary to prove that Steel knew Beban was committing an offence in showing on June 11, there is no doubt that he knew it. In my opinion, the public who attended on the night of June 11 and paid the average £2O to £25 to Beban by so doing provided Beban the inducement to show the pictures on that date, and so aided and abbetted him in the commission of his offence. The defendant, Steel, by attending and contributing his shilling became liable as one of the public. I do not think Mr Hannan’ s distinction between ‘‘keeping open” and “trading” affects the present case. The use of the words “keeping open” only makes the section more comprehensive. Beban ‘keeps open’ because it pays him to do so. The public voluntarily pay him enough \to make worth his while to go on repeating hi s offence. They, therefore, aid him in committing the offence. Tn mv opinion, therefore, Steel, on the night of June 11 aided Beban in committing an offence and is therefore liable under section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1908. As the case is brought as a test case, the defendant will be convicted and merely ordered to pay costs, 7/-. “In the case of Jone s (operator), and Hawkins (pianist), both defendants are in the employ of Arthur Beban, who has been lined on several occasions for a breach of Section 17. On the night of June 11, Jones acted as operator and Hawkins as conductor at the entertainment given on the night. Both knew that Beban was committing an offence on that night. It i s no defence that they are employees of Beban. In dealing with a similar case in Westford v. Miller, N.Z. Law Reports 1920, page 853, Sir Robert Stout said : ‘lt docs not assist him to say he was a servant of the Club, if a servant aid his master in the „ commission of a crime, ho is guilty either as a principal or as an accessory.’ Tn my opinion both defendants aided Beban in doing an un- ’ lawful act and are liable under section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act. It being the first case of it s kind, each is convicted and ordered to pay costs 7/-.”

Arthur Behan (Mr J. Hannan), was again fined £1 with costs in respect of the commission of an offence, under section 17 of the Police Offences Act on Sunday, June 18.