THE PUBLIC SAFETY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1665, 27 January 1904, Page 60

THE PUBLIC SAFETY.

3MATMESB AND OTHER PLACES m : , OF, AMUSiEIMEINT. 1 THE TEEEIAmB ROYAL. Dirt vsd; ■ ; : (Seven informations charging P. R,3>ix with using, the Theatre Royal for purposes of public eiitertainmout without its bedng duly licensed for such were heard by Dr McArthur, 8.M., m the Magistrate's Court on Thursday. 30aoh information had reference to different date. Mr O’Shea appeared on beluaif of the City Council, Mr Wilford defended, and Mr , Bell was present to watch the proceedings can behalf of the Public Hall Company, the owners of the premises. ■; Mi’ O'Shea said the informations w£«-e laid under sections 362 and >367 of vhe Municipal Corporations Act of 1902, which made it an offence to use an unlicensed building for the purposes of public entertainments. The question of ’the merits or demerits of the Theatre Royal had nothing to do with the case — it was purely a matter of carrying on without a license. Mi- Dix had applied for a license but it had not been granted. John It. Palmer, Town Cleric, gave evidence that no license had been .granted for the Theatre Royal. Mr 'Wflford: Bid you send a debit note to Mr Dix for £2O for his license fee? Witness: I have no knowledge of it. I would not say that one Was not sent. Will you deny it? —No. Is it a fact that the Council offices were closed before 5 o’clock on December 24th?—They are closed every evening at 4 o’clock to, the public. Are you aware that on December 24th Mr Dix sent a boy to your office with the application form and the fee of £2O, jn answer/to the note?—(No. Were you in your office after 4 o’clock on the 24th.?—Yes, until 8 o’clock. Were you there between ten minutes past 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock that day?— I think not. Was your office dosed at 12 o’clock (neon) on the 24th?—Yes. Then if the money was sent after 12 o’clock on the 24ith it would not'have been possible to have paid it? •—Winess replied that that was so. ■ Can you tell me if the Council asked Mr Dix to make any TstruoturaJl alterations to his premises before a certain date?—No. Continuing, witness sav 3 that he wais not aware that £BOO h®* been spent •three years ago, before a license- was granted. He believed some money was spent. The City Oouncil had not met since Mr Dix applied for his license, nor had. any sub-committee of the Council refused to grant his license. , Mr Wilford: Then by what light do you tell Mr Dix his license will not ha granted?—Witness: I don’t think it says so, ißy what authority then do you say, “It is extremely unlikely that the committee, which will meet shortly, will he able do grant your license?”—The Mayor’s. Can you point me any section in the Municipal Corporatiqns Act authorising the Mayor to do this?—l don’t know of any Section, but the Mayor has authority to act, generally, for the Council. How? —As a general custom. Will you tell, me of any statutory provision authorising him to refuse the license? —He has not refused one. Proceeding, witness said no attempt bad been made to call a special meeting of the Council to deal with the matter. There was provision in the Municipal Corporations Act for calling special meetings to deal with matters like this. Witness knew that a number of people were employed by Mr Dix at the time. The reference in his letter to Mr Dix about “practically rebuilding the theatre” if a license was to be granted was also made on the Mayor’s authority. Mr Palmer was the only witness for the prosecution. Evidence for the defence wa9 then (Called. Percy R. Dix, lessee of the Theatre Royal, in evidence, stated that three years ago, before his license was granted, a large number of improvements had to be made and fire-escapes erected at ;> a cost of £BOO. The theatre was visited by a sub-committee Of the Council after this’and before the granting of the license. Witness applied for his license in December. 1903, on a form‘ sent by the Town Clerk. With the form witness also received a debit note for £2O. There was a postscript attached on the corner to the effect that the money should be paid on or before 24th, as the holidays were coming on. He sent a boy with the money and the application on the 24th, but jfi was returned on account: of the office being closed. Witness then simply posted the applicat on to the Town Clerks and received the following in reply .from him:- -“Referring to your application of the 24th ulfc. for a license for tbe’.Tlieatre Royal for one year from the 26tli ult., I am directed by his .Worship the Mayor to point out to you.that from tl i nature of a report furnished to his Worship with regard to the building ai>i its use as. a theatre, it 4s ‘ extremely* unlikely that the committee, which will meet

shortly, will be enabled to aflvise the Oouncil to issue a license, except upon conditions which will practicably involve the rebuilding of the theatre. Under these I -am directed to point' out the fact that yoju are at the present moment using the theatre without a license, and to give you notice that you must immediately discontinue such use, and to further inform you that in the event of yefur continuing to use the theatre after the receipt of this notice it will be necessary for the Council to take legal action in prevention thereof. I am, however, to express the hope that it will not be necessary for the Council to take this step.” A request for reconsideration was met with the following reply:—“l have to acknowledge yours of to-day’s date, asking the reconsideration of the notice sent to you yesterday to discontinue the use of the Theatre Royal (at present unlicensed), and that you may be allowed to continue the *nse of the building until the 20th inst. In reply, lam directed by his Worship the Mayor to state that in view of the unsafe condition of the building from a fire point of view, and its extreme danger to the public, your request cannot be acceded to. I am, therefore, to again impress upon you the necessity of immediate compliance with the terms of the notice.” At the present time, witness went on to say, the theatre was in exactly the same state as it was three years ago —but the Chicago fire had not taken place then! An experiment was conducted the other night. The theatre, when practically Bull, was emptied in 75 seconds. ' Re-examined by Mr O’Shea: ;You had an experiment? Was that the night you had the fire? Witness: What fire? Did you not have a fire which had to be extinguished with buckets of water? —Not that I know of. Was there no fire?—l understand that some steam came in contact with a light, but the result could not be called a fire. . Have you not been carrying on with-, out a license simply to defy the Council ?_Not defiance. I had 120 people on my hands, and I could not turn them into the street.

' Yes, and you had 1000 people in your theatre! Mr Dix: Yes; and more than that at times. Fred. Healey, who was sent to the City Council offices with the application for renewal of license and the £2O fee, and George Burrell, who took the time of emptying the theatre on the, n’ght of the experiment, swore to certain facts referred to above. Mr Wilford, for the defence, said that no structural ’alterations had been made in. the theatre since the last notice serv--ed by the Council, when all its requirements were carried out. Mr Justice Channell’s judgment iii the case of the St. James’s Public Haill Company v. the London County Council showed that where notice was served oil the owner of a building requiring him to remedy structural defects from which special danger of fire may' result and where the requirements have been complied with by the owner, there was no powei to servo another notice under the same section in respect of the same building. In this judgment Its Honor remarked that the change of view which had apparently. taken place on the part of defendant council was illustrative of tlio mischief of holding that the powers of the section might be exercised from time time whenever it appeared to this “fluctuating body ” that there was danger; also that it would bo hqrd if, as soon as the owner had complied with the requirements, he should be liable bo be called upon to.pull down and alter the work on the changing view of the controlling body or its architect. Counsel further contended that the debit note for the Ucense fee practically amounted to a renewal of the license. Defendant, for reasons ho had already pointed out, had a continuing right to his license. He had appealed to the Supreme Court for redress in the matter. Accordingly, he (counsel) submitted that his Worship should either dismiss the informations or refuse to deal with them until the Supreme Court had decided the application now before it. If the Lower Court convicted, and the Higher Court subsequently granted his client redress, it would be in a very niop position ! Probably there would be an action for damages. Counsel spoke of the action of the Chief Magistrate of; the city and the harshness which had been suffered by his client. The ,damage he had suffered through this action could not be accurately estimated. Mr O’Shea, in reply, said that the polmt raised about the authority of the Mayor to do certain acts was met by subsection 5 of section 24 of the Interpretation Act of 1888. Many of the questions raised were really subjects for argument by the Supreme Court. Ihe point at present to be decided by the Court was a very simple one, i.e., whether the theatre was licensed or unlicensed. The prosecution had proved, that it was not. Then the contention 0 f Mr Wilford that the cases should be held over pending.a decision by'the Supreme Court on the questions now before it could be answered by a'reference to the decision in the Newtown licensing oases. Theje it had been decided, that, the existence of an appeal y.as no justification folcavry on business when a license was not in force.

His Worship asked if the request for the fee did not mean that the license was to be granted, Mr O’Shea answered that it did not. The letter sent to Mr Dix was simply a note from the City Treasurer asking defendant to “fix the matter up.” There was some discussion at this stage about the actual wording of tho letter, Mr Wilford stating that the fee was distinctly asked for. The letter was not put in, but Mr Wilford said lie was prepared) to swear to what he had just stated. Mr O’Shea, continuing, said if that was the case the letter had been written without authority. A report on the Theatre Royal had been presented to the Council by the Fire Inspector, which showed that the building was un-. fit to be used for public entertainments if any regard was to be paid to the publio safety. , His Worship: It’s funny they only found that out now! Mr O’Shea: That has nothing to do with the matter. His Worship: I think it has. You are relying on a strictly legal point. Mr O’Shea reiterated that it was a question whether defendant had a license or not. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his contention that it was incumbent on the lessee at all times to keep the escapes in a state of sufficiency. The reason so many informations were laid was to secure sufficient Qonvictlions to move for an injunction in the Supreme Court. Mr Bell did not address the Court. After some further argument, his Worship intimated that he would give his decision on Thursday week.