SUNDAY AMUSEMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 May 1936, Page 3

SUNDAY AMUSEMENT

£2OO PENALTY IMPOSED. SYDNEY, April 17. In the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Stephen gave a verdict for £2OO against the International Cycling Carnivals, Ltd., controllers of the i Canterbury Velodrome, as a penalty for a, breach of the Sunday Observance Act of 1780. j A programme of cycling and woodchopping events was gone through at the Velodrome on Sunday. October 6, 1935, in the presence of a crowd which witnesses estimated at from 4,000 to 6,000 people. Cash prizes were paid for the events. The gates were open at 1 p.m., and the programme .continued until 5 p.m. His Honor held that the company, was the keeper of a place which wap open and used for public amusement on a Sunday to which persons, wei-a admitted by the payment of money. Tho Act provides that the keeper of tho place, in these circumstances, shall forfeit £2OO to any person who' shall sue for the same. I

“ONE DAY OF REST.” In this case, the “any person” was William Robert Harrup, secretary of the Australian Theatrical Employees’ Association. His counsel, Mr. Brian Clancy, in opening the case to the Court, said that the sole, desire of Mr. Harrop was to keep for members of his us.'ociation one day of rest in every week. The association opposed any. steps towards the establishment of a Continental Sunday. There was evidence that before the ;■■ hcring on Sunday, October 6, anj

I’-.ivertisement was published in thei I i - s which included the words: “Buy! ;• programme for sixpence and one' : billing and bo with the throng.” Instructions were given by the manager of the company to the gatekeepers that persons insisting on entering the ground without payment should be allowed to do so. Programmes of distinctive colours were sold at the gates. The blue programme, which

cost one shilling, was sold at the gates which gave entry to the seats near the finishing-posts. The yellow programnres were sold at the entrance to less desirable parts of the ground. Yellow tickets were sold to children for sixpence. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Stephen said that, in some cases persons were allowed to enter without payment and that, in other cases, indications were given by gatekeepers that programmes should be obtained. As tho manager said, the company looked to the honesty and goodwill of the public to purchase programmes. He bad to consider what was substantially tho nature of the arrangement made by the company itself for the admission of what the advertisement called “its. patrons.” In his opinion, the arrangement put forward by the company was one which would be taken quiring the possession of a programme, Ijy the general public who intended to. attend the entertainment as one rewhich was substantially the same as a ticket. ...