SHOWING WITHOUT A LICENSE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2043, 18 October 1919, Page 2

SHOWING WITHOUT A LICENSE.

KOYAL PICTURE THEATRE ' " CASE. CASE ADJOURNED. CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES. ‘ .. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the Foxion Borough Council proceeded again.-.! W. Hamer and Son for showing pictures in an unlicensed building. Mr K. Moore ap- ~ pea red for the Borough Council, and defendants, who pleaded not guilty, were represented by Mr M. H. Oram. Mr Moore, in opening, briefly outlined the history of the ease. He said that defendants'had made application for a license, and upon receiving same the Council had employed an architect to make an inspection of the building. The architect recommended that additional fire escape provision should be made, and that three-more tie-rods should be fixed. In fairness to defendants, Mr Moore said it should also bo made known that the architect had staled that outside of . recommendations the theatre has, been* well built. The defendants were notified of the architect s recommendations, and were advised that as soon as same were carried out a license would be issued. No" reply to this communication was received from defendants, and on September 30th it was publicly noticed by advertisement that, defendant's were opening the building as a picture theatre on October Ist, On seeing this advertisement, the Mayor and the Town' Clerk waited mi defendants to see if an amicable tlement could not be made, but with- ■ out result, and pictures were shown on the night of October Ist, imd every night since except Sundays.

On October fith the .Mayor instructed 1110 Borough Fire Inspector to inspect the building, and he reported that the architect’s recommendations had not .been carried out. According to Sections 305 and 310 of the Municipal Corporations Act, an offence was committed in showing pictures in a building without lirst obtaining a license.

The Afagistrate said that according to the Municipal Act all it was necessary for the prosecution to do was to show that defendants did not have a license. Air Moore agreed that this was so, and culled William Trueman, Town Clerk, to prove that no license had boon issued. Air Trueman said that Afessrs Hamer and Son had 11! tide application for a license, and had paid 13s -kl,-being the proportion of license fee for the balance of the year, for which he had given a receipt. The application was considered by the Council, ami it was decided to refuse same until Ihe architect’s recommendations had been complied with. Afessrs Hamei*j and Son were notified accordingly. No license had been issued. Air Oram: Isn’t it a fact that the • architect was called in fur the express purpose of getting him to condemn the brick walls 1 Witness: Not to my knowledge as Town Clerk.

■ The'Magistrate said he could not see anything in (lie Borough Bylaws to say that pictures could not be shown in an unlicensed building. Air Oram proceeded to question the witness as to reasons why 'the Council had not granted the license, but the Magistrate said that he didn’t think lie (the Magistrate) was railed upon to go into that.question.

All he was concerned about was whether a license had been issued or not. The question of whelher the license had been, wrongfully withheld was a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. Provision was made by Statute for defendants if they felt agrieved to apply t*o the Supreme Court for an order to compel the Council to grant the license. Mr Oram said that all along his client had been under the impression that the .Council was proceeding against ihoqi under the hy-laws until they had consulted him the day previous they were not aware that it was an offence under the Municipal Corporations Act. The history of this case dated back several years, and he would like to call evidence to show the Magistrate what the position. really was.

The. Magistrate said that he did not think lie Should be asked to go into that part of the matter,, as it did not concern the Court. Defendants’ remedy was provided by Statute, and they could apply to the Supreme Court for an order, and could then go fully into the history of the case. Air Oram contended that the information was wrong, as it was laid under the by-laws, instead of the Municipal Corporations Act.

Mr Moore said that ho had boon careful to lay the information under' both the by-laws and the Act. After' some legal argument, the Magistrate said he would have to take time* to go fully into the matter, and this would necessitate ad- * journing the case. If the information was correctly I|ud, it seemed to .him a conviction must be entered. Mr On\m agreed that if tljo information was correctly laid defendants must be convicted. He belief- 1 ed that if the parties, had a confer- • enee the matter could be amicably settled. ■" - The Magistrate: Then by all means haven conference. He said he woulcT adjourn the case until the next siding, and in the meantime the parties might be able to things. ■

A conference was subsequently . hold, and the matter was further hold over until Monday night, when a special meeting of the Council will be held to' consider same.