MONTECINO FINED.

Grey River Argus, 25 September 1928, Page 8

MONTECINO FINED.

PIANO PLAYING ON SUNDAY. Piano playing endurance stunts don’t prove a very strong attraction to West. Coasters according to James Samuel Montecino, the marathon pianist, who has been performing in Greymouth, recently. Monticino appeared before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, accompanied by his “right hand man,” Donald G. Surrell, both being charged with keeping open premises in Mayfair Buildings, Mawhera Quay, on Sunday, for the purpose of transacting business. Constable Cogswell stated ho was on duty in Mawhera Quay about 8 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 16, wjien a piano playing test was proceeding at the Mayfair Buildings. Montecino was at the piano and Surrell was one of his pqrty. There were a. number of bills exhibited outside, announcing that Montecino, the wonder boy pianist, was attempting to break his own world’s record of 1274 hours playing. There was a door-keeper outside and a chair with a plate on it containing a. number of coins—from three-penny bits to shillings. While witness was there three or four people entered and put coins on the plate. A blackboard was hung on the wall with the words “silver coin admission,” and also that Monticino had completed 96 hours and was still going strong. There were were from 22 to 25 people in the room including several women. Montecino was playing and Surrell was lecturing the audience about the endurance tost. W|ien witness entered Surrell stopped, but Montecino continued to play. When interviewed, Sqprei! had sg,id that the money collected went toward paying the rent of the building and for the piano and general expenses. He stated that the show was run by Montecino, but the profits were shared by them. There was a notice up stating that no dancing was permitted. During week days 1/- was charged for admission. He had not seen anyone enter without paying.

Questioned by Montecino, witness said that ho was in the building for about a quarter of an hour, and on four different occasions. The words on the board were “ Silver coin admission”—at least he thought they were. Montecino: Would you dispute the matter with me if I said the words were “Silver Coin Collection.” Witness: Yes. I would.

Sergeant Smyth gave evidence that Constable Hay 'and himself passed the building about 10.50 a.m. on the Sunday. The board then had the words, “Admission 1/-.” When they again passed tlin shop in the afternoon the board read “Silver coin admission,” not “silver coin collection.” The board was not altered until, at any rate. 9.20 p.m. on Sunday. Giving evidence Montecino stated that the whole charge was a surprise to him. He had played in practically every town in the country and this was the first occasion on which he had been charged for taking a silver coin collection on a Sunday. He had been fined £5 at Auckland, but a charge was then made for admission. Nobody was asked to pay on Sunday. The doorkeeper was merely there to see that “nobody got away with anything. ’ ’ The Sergeant: Can you say that people went in without paying? Defendant: Yes. One chap came in and made a boast of it. He said it was not worth paying to sec me and we had a bit of an argument about it. I could mention the man’s name. That was about one o’clock on the Sunday morning.’ A The Sergeant: You might call that Saturday night. Montecino said that no charge was made after Sunday night. A lot of the money in the plate had been put in by themselves “to give a little encouragement. ’The Sergeant: How do you know what was going on—you didn’t leave the piano? The Magistrate remarked that defendant evidently kept one eye on the plate and the other on the pjano. Montecino complained that the police had not given him any warning that he was breaking the law. The Sergeant: It’s not our business to tell you. You should have known after your experience at Auckland. In reply to the Magistrate, Montecino stated that the silver coins went to pay the expenses. The whole thing was a failure and they we*e not go ing to repeat the performance. Surrell, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated that he had put up the notice board. The exact wording on it was “Silver collection to-day.” The word “admission” was not used, fie cleaned the blackboard with a dry nag, and the police might have seen the word “admission” still showing. There was no fixed charge on the Sunday, and no one was asked to pay. Defendant stoutly denied that the writing on the board had been altered after the police had visited the premises. I In entering a conviction with a fine of 5/- with 10/- costs in each case, the Magistrate said: “The fact that the performance was not a very profitable one does not make any difference as to the question of whether o>- not a breach of the' Act was taking plrce. Defendants were endeavouring to make a living—a somewhat precarious one—by feats of endurance. The money obtained on the Sunday was all going either to pty expenses or to swell the profits. There was no doubt that a breach of the Act was committed. Tt -was not a very serious one, but still it was a breach.”