THOSE P ICTURES AGAIN.
A young native boy was charged with breaking into a shop and stealing £6. Evidence was given to show' that his father was a respected and educated native, and the boy had never before given any trouble. Counsel suggested that picture-going was at ’he bottom of the trouble. The Magistrate said he had had cases before where the root of the trouble was picture-going. He ordered the stolen money to be refunded and costs to be paid, and then discharged the boy on condition that he mast not enter a picture theatre for a year. He had found this prohibition to have a most beneficial effect. Query: Which is better, for f he par ent to forbid picture-going while the boy is innocent, or the Magistrate to prohibit it after he has become f. criminal?
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/WHIRIB19211118.2.7
Bibliographic details
White Ribbon, Volume 27, Issue 317, 18 November 1921, Page 2
Word Count
139THOSE PICTURES AGAIN. White Ribbon, Volume 27, Issue 317, 18 November 1921, Page 2
Using This Item
Women's Christian Temperance Union New Zealand is the copyright owner for White Ribbon. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this journal for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. This journal is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Women's Christian Temperance Union New Zealand. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this journal, please refer to the Copyright guide