UNLICENSED THEATRE

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 19 June 1925, Page 10

UNLICENSED THEATRE

PROPRIETORS FINED

On May 19, Sir Harry Lauder gave a farewell concert in the Theatre Royal, and was greeted by a record house, people even being seated on the stage. As a result, the municipal authorities took action, and yesterday morning, at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., H. Fraser and W. A. Gunn (trustees for the proprietors of the Theatre Royal) were each charged with permitting a larger number of persons to enter the Theatre than the number stated on their license; also that they did use the premises without ,a license. As the defendans were co-trustees, the charges were preferred against the former. A similar charge to the first one was entered against Thomas Vallance, of the Sir Harry Lauder Company, but was dismissed. .

Mr W. D. Campbell appeared for the theatre proprietors, and Mr S. I. Fitch for the Timaru Borough Council. Mr Fitch said he understood that although defendants had paid a license fee for the theatre, they had not taken out a license, as required by the by-law. Mr Campbell said a license had not been given when the fee had been paid. Mr Fitch said action was being taken because it had been a deliberate case of overcrowding, not through the fault of the proprietors, but of the Harry Lauder Company. L. E. Freeman, borough inspector, said there was no license issued to the Theatre Royal last year, but the fee (£l3) had been paid. This year’s fee had also been paid. On May 19 he had visited the Theatre Royal, and had found it to bo badly overcrowded.

He estimated that at least 100 people' were seated on the stage, while the aisles were crowded, and in the dress circle the ledges were being made use of. In liis opinion there were at least ;200. people occupying the usual seats. He had inquired for the manager, and had seen Mr Vallance, who appeared to be in charge of affairs. Witness explained the danger caused by overcrowding. Had there been a fire, the people on the stage would have been in a very dangerous position. In reply to Mr Campbell, witness admitted that lie had'not gone to tho office of the Theatre, but had interviewed Mr Vallance. He had not thought to ask the lessee of the theatre. Peter Campbell, Superintendent of the Tunaru Fire Brigade, gave evidence as to inspecting the theatre on May 19. On the stage, extra seating accommodation had been placed, consisting of five rows of long forms. Had those on the stage needed to get out quickly they would have been blocked. Tho dress circle and stalls were packed, extra chairs being placed everywhere. . In reply to Mr Fitch, witness said the case was tho worst that had ever occurred at Timaru. He had spoken to the manager of the company, who had stated that no objections had been raised in regard to crowding in other centres. One of the ushers had informed him that they hgd been instructed to fill the aisles. Mr Campbell said the premises could nftf Lo nsfwl as n. tlip.fitrft HTiIgSS it WclS

licensed. That a license had not been issued was not the fault of his clients, for the fee had been paid, but no license issued. If that was taken into consideration, then the building was at present being used illegally. The only case that the Council; could take action in was a charge of using the building' without a license. Mr Fitch said lie regretted that the; question of the license had “cropped up,” as it had been a most deliberate qase of overcrowding. Mr Campbell said that tlio penalty for using the building without a license would fall on tho lessees, and not on the proprietors. Tho lessee of the" theatre that night was Mr E. J. Carroll, under whose direction Sir Harry Lauder was appearing. His Worship: “What concerns the Court is who are liable, the lessees or the proprietors.’’ Mr Campbell said the offence was committed in tho using of the theatre, and in that case the company was the offender.

Harry Kennedy, manager of tlie theatre, said the building had been leased to E. J. Carroll, Ltd., and as far as he was aware, Vallance was Sir Harry Lauder’s private secretary, and- had nothing to do with the management pf the company. His Worship said he could not construe that a license had been issued, and as a result the prosecution was the outcome of a rather extraordinary state of affairs. No doubt the civic authorities had good reasons for not issuing a license. Nevertheless, it semned peculiar that the theatre could be used to the danger of the public, and no license or control exercised. From the evidence he was satisfied that the theatre was unlicensed, and had been so for some considerable time. Mr. Vallance was neither owner nor lessee,, so the charge against him would be dismissed. Mr Campbell’s argument was ingenious and specious, but did not appeal to him. The only people who could govern the _ use of the building were the proprietors, and the onus was upon them. However, they were not entirely to blame, as they had paid for a license, but had not taken one out. The proprietors ]md done tlieir duty as far as thev could, but according to the by-law thev had no right to let the theatre until the license was ohained. Tlie first charge was dismissed, and on the charge of using tho theatre without a license .a lino of £1 and costs was imposed.