PICTURES ON SUNDAY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10646, 21 December 1910, Page 4

PICTURES ON SUNDAY.

A CONVICTION RECORDED

Deferred decision was given by his Worship,'Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., to-; day in the case of C. W. Kent (Town Clerk) v. Alexander M'Donakl, a prosecution tinder section . 306 (1) of thq Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, which enacts that no concert or entertainment of any kind which is open to the public, whether by the purchase of tickets or otherwise, shall be held or given on any Sunday without the written consent of the Council, and then only subject to such conditions in every respect as the Council may impose. The defendant, who is the proprietor of a cinematograph show, on Sunday, the 11th December, exhibited at the Drill Hall, Oamaru, which, is licensed as a public hall by the Borough Council, a series of pictures representing the life of Christ and two others represent ing views. At the door an employee of the defendant sat at a table whereon passers-in,".or most of-them, left a coin of silver. No perm ission" had- been giyeij. to the defendant to use the' hall 'on the Sunday. Indeed, such permission had been refused, and the refusal communicated to the defendant before Saturday evening. The exhibition was advertised in the local papers on the previous Saturday at the foot of an advertisement of a Saturday evening programme as "a Biblical picture service. Subject: 'The Life of Christ.' Sacred music. Collection." For the defence it was contended (1) that sections 305-311 of the Municipal Corporations Act slumld be read together, and that, so rending them, the remedy for a breach of section 306 was to be found in section 309, which provides that the Council may canoe! or suspend the license of a hall in which the breach was committed. His Worship did not agree with this, holding that the Act must be read as a whole and effect given to each enactment in it. Section 306 prohibited a certain thing unless sanctioned by the Council. It was a provision of general public concern. Any person therefore might institute a "prosecution for a breach of the section, and the provision of sec-, t'ion .309, which was only permissive in its terms, was additional to the ordinary pecuniary penalty. Moreover, the weight of a cancellation or suspension might conceivably fall upon an innocent person and not upon the offender against section 306. The second contention was that the facts did not show that an "entertainment" had been given. This contention rested upon the proposition that the word implied amusement, and views illustrating the life of Christ bad nothing of this nature in them. His Worship considered not what the eifect of the exhibition might be on this or that person, but whether it was in its nature, an entertainment of any kind. "I am of opinion that it was," said his Worship. "The word entertainment no doubt includes amusement, but it means much more. Mental enjoyment or instruction caused by anything seen or heard is entertainment. Though not directly in point, the decisions under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780 (21 George 111., c .49), have a relevancy to the question of what is a place of entertainment and these show that the element of amusement is not necessary." A conviction was recorded, but, having regard to the. fact that this was the first prosecution of the kind, and that so far as defendant was concerned it would be the last, defendant would be fined 20s and '...costs.

Mr Lucas appeared for the prosecu tiori and Mr Hjorring for the.defence.

The information laid against the same defendant on the same facts for keeping the Drill Hall open on December 11th for the purpose of transacting his business in eontraversion of the Police Offences Act was dismissed.