SUNDAY PICTURES.

Grey River Argus, 27 June 1922, Page 2

SUNDAY PICTURES.

THE TEST CASES. GENERAL PI’BLIC .LIABLE. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., gave his judgment yesterday in the cases winch wore brought on Monday, June 19, against two of the employees of ivlr A. Beban, of Peerless Pictures, also a member of the general public who had attended a programme. Judgment in all cases went against deiendan s.

The two members of Mr Behan’s Stall were .Messrs Hawkins and Jones, pianist and operator respectively ami Wiliam Steele was the member of the audience, ami they were charged in rc.sjset-! oj ihe keeping open 1,1 Ihe Town Hall ” on *. Sunday, .1 une J Lih., • for i |,e I purpose* ot transacting business there-

in, contrary to section 17 of The Police Otlcnues Art.’’ Mr ,1. Hannan was the defending solicitor. Beingtest cases, the Bench im*rely convicted defendants ami ordered them io pay costs. 'l'he full text of Mr Aleldrum’s jmigment is as follows:— ’ s ‘juite clear that the support given by ihe public iu money contributions is the inducement to Beban • o (ontinin* showing on Sundavs ami lhal il. the public ceased to ]>ay hi* Avould (‘ease to show. It was held m. Rex v. Young that, if spectators are present at a duel assisting and <*nuoucaging by their ]>resem-e when the Jalal .shut i.s hred they ar<* in law guilty of murder. The decision has been modified in Rex v. Coney, which is! the case relied upon by Mr Hannan, inure were seven out of ten judges held that mere presence at a light, does not justify the inference as a matter oi law that the persons so present are | guilty ot an assault in aiding and abetting in such light. Tin* ground on I which the majority' uf the Court proceeded was thus put by Air .lusiic<‘ 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 I evidence, but no more than evidence, for the jury.’ In Steel’s case, his pre-] sen'e was in ten*.iona 1. Beban had ad vertised in the public Press his invention to give a performance on June JI. Il was a mailer ol common knowledge in Greymouth that Beban in spite of successive convictions was continuing his Sunday pictures. Steel went to the Town Hall to see the pictures and with others of the public paid knowing that in paying he was supplying Beban with the necessary inducement to show ami continue showing ou Sunday. Though iI. is not necessary to prove that steel knew Beban was committing an offence in showing on .June I lih, there is no doubt that lie knew iL In my opinion, the publje who attend’d ou the night of Jane II and paid th'* average £2O i< £25 to Beban l>y so 1 doing provid:<i Beban the inducement to show th*- pictures on that date, and ' st> nidej. and abetted him in the comniissioi; of his oll’cnce. Tin* defemlant, Steel, by attending ami coutri- • bating his .1 became liable as one of : the pv.blic. I do not tiling Mr Hannan’s distinction belween ‘‘keeping oj.ten ami ‘‘trading’’ alfcets the ]>resent case. The use of the words ‘‘keeping Dpen” only makes tin* section more com prehensiv <*. Behan ‘keeps open’ because it pays him to enough to make it worth while to g" 1 mi repeating his olfem-e. They, there i

fore, aid him in committing the offence. In my opinion, therefore. Steel, on the night of June 11 aided Behan in committing an oifeme ami is therefore liable under section 53 of the .lustices ol ihe Peace Art, I9OX. As the case is brought as a lest case, the defendant will be convicted ami merely ordered to ]*ay c-.sts, 7.'-. ‘‘ln tie cast* of Jones (operator!, and Hawkins (pianist), both defendants are in the employ of Arthur Beban. who has l.ieen lined on several occasions for a breach of Section .17. On the night of June 11. .hn.es acted as operator ami Hawkins as conductor at the entertainment given on that night. Both knew that Beban was conimiting an offence on that night. It is no defence that they are employees of Beban. In dealing with a similar case in West ford v. M iller, N.Z. Law Reports 1920, page 553, Sir Robert Stout said: ‘lt does not assist him to say he was a servant of the (‘iub, H a servant aid his master in the commission of a crime, he is guilty either as a principal or as an accessory.’ In mv opinion both defendants aided Behan in doing an unlawful act ami arn liable under section 53 of the Justices of th.* Peace Act. It being tin* first case of its kind, each is convicted and order to pay costs 7/-. Arthur Beban (Mr J. Hannan) was fined £1 and costs for keeping open the 'Town Hall on Sunday .June 18th, such being an offence against the Police Offences Act. H<* was also find £1 ami costs in respect of another charge.