PICTURES ON SUNDAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20992, 1 October 1931, Page 14

PICTURES ON SUNDAYS.

FURTHER PROSECUTIONS. ♦ RATIONALISTS AGAIN FINED. " CITY COUNCIL DEFIED." Further prosecutions in connection with ■Hie showing of moving pictures on Sundays were heard before Mr. W. I>. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, yesterday. The New Zealand Association for the 'Advancement of Rationalism (Mr. O'Dea) pleaded guilty to three charges of holding unauthorised public entertainments, and Sterling Rogers (Mr. Armstrong) pleaded guilty to one charge. The proceedings were brought under section 309 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, which provides that no concert or entertainment open to the public may be held on a Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day without the written consent of the controlling local authority. The case against the Rationalists' Association was heard first-. Mr. Butler, who appeared for the City Council, said the charges referred to programmes presented in the Majestic Theatre on three Sunday evenings immediately following the conviction of the defendant association for a similar offence. No application had ever been made to the City Council to bold these entertainments, which were substantially the same as on the previous occasion, when a fine of £ls was imposed. ' "It would appear that defendants carried on for ono purpose only—to obtain sufficient funds to make an appeal in the Supreme Court," added Mr. Butler. "Not an Ordinary Entertainment." Mr. O'Dea submitted -.that, the programme on August 23 was not in any way an ordinary entertainment. It consisted, be said, of half, an hour .of. lantern slide talks, mostly propaganda, followed by a short, educational film," -"Through the Canadian Rockies," and two 40 minutes' lectures, one of which was in conjunction with a moving picture. The mam address was on "Sunday Liberty.'.' The .other programmes in question were similar in nature. Counsel said a pica of guilty had been entered to avcid incurring further expense. The appeal to the. Supreme Court had been made in order to get an authoritative ruling.-. The decision - had gone against the association, which , was prepared to give an undertaking that it would hqld.no more Sunday meetings until such time as the existing iaw was amended. Comment by Magistrate. The magistrate remarked that as the defendant association had defied the City Council, there seemed very little reason for not imposing a substantial penalty. He would accept counsel's assurance, however, that no further entertainments would bo held. The association would be fined £5 on each charge and ordered to pay Court costs. £1 10s, and solicitor's fee, £3 3s. Referring to the charge against Rogers, Mr. Butler said defendant controlled the supper rooms and cabaret in that part of the Civic Theatre known as the Winter Garden. On the evening of Sunday, August 30, iu order to attract the public, lie screened a full picture programme. Admission- was by tickets of Is each, the purchasers being entitled to view the pic tures and partake of light refreshments. On this occasion the lower circle of the theatre was open as well as the ground floor, and there were between 800 and 900 people present. No permission to hold an entertainment had been applied for. Offence Committed in "Good Faith." Mr. Armstrong said the cafe in question was open every day of the week. In screening pictures on Sundays the manager had acted in good faith as ho thought short films were just as permissible as musical items. The people paid for their supper and not for the pictures or music. .An application had now been lodged with the. City Council and until that was dealt with no films would be screened on Sundays. "You either pet the pictures thrown in for nothing, or the supper," said Mr. Butler, "it all depends which -way you look at it." In any case, he added, there was little difference between the. programme in question and the ordinary week-day programme. In imposing a fine of £lO. the magistrate suggested that the City Council should take no further action in respect of other past programmes flinivn by de fendant.; Court costs amounted to 10s and solicitor's fees to £2 2s.