The Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3542, 30 June 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1874

We give our Resident Magistrate full credit for good intentions in his decisions, although we think in dismissing the case against the man known as “Guy Fawkes," he committed a grave error.

According .to .the reporters’ accounts the charge -was one of disorderly conduct in a public place, and the ’ man’s statement only was taken, who said that he was drunk; on this

ground the case was dismissed, as it was held that the lessees of the theatre

should not have admitted a drunken man. No doubt our worthy magistrate thought it a good opportunity for impressing upon the management the necessity for keeping out of theatres men or women who have unfitted themselves for civilised society by drink. But the fact of his having been admitted did not lessen his offence,

and it aggravated the fbul-mouthed language that led to the information being laid. We quite agree with the magistrate that no man or woman who is drunk should be admitted into a theatre or other place of amusement, or into a public conveyance. drunken gentleman is an annoyance, but a drunken blackguard is a public nuisance, and every cabman allowing either to take a seat in his car should be bound not to take any other passenger, but drive him off to the police station or to his own home, on receiving the full fare for every passenger he is entitled to carry. But it is a very difficult matter to settle when a man is drunk, or, during a theatrical performance, when he becomes drunk. A money-taker at a theatre may not observe symptoms that doctors in a Court of Inquiry, such as the Surat case, cannot describe. Every man who presents himself for a ticket, who acts at the moment as if sober, has surely a right to be admitted ; and since every one is at liberty, after admission, to go out again and, if he choose, indulge in

drink, lie may have been, sober on entering into the contract, and have besotted himself during the progress of the performance. It is, therefore, | carrying the matter too far to assume that the management is blamable for admitting one who should have been refused a ticket. Then as to the offence itself. Assuming that the lessees erred, the man’s offence is neither lessened nor excused. It is not the

lessees of the theatre who are required to be punished because a drunkard utters obscene language, but the public who require to be protected against blackguardism. The lessees may be wrong, but it is no reason why an offender should go unpunished. The police preferred a

charge: surely they should have been allowed to give evidence in support of that charge. It is not to' be Sitp'poßed,

that any policeman would be guilty of charging a man with such an offence on slight grounds. The reporters present at the theatre agree that the language used was of the coarsest ) that the man’s conduct was most

unseemly and violent ; that he did not appear to indelicate were his expressions that no lady or man who valued her or his selfrespect could hear his words without feeling insulted; and that in consequence the curtain had to be lowered until one who so decency could be removed. Yet this man was the only one questioned. He did not deny the charge, but, admitting he vras guilty of one offence, aggravated it by excusing himself on the ground that he had been guilty of another; and, because he was, according to his own account, both drunk and foul-tongued, his case was treated as if he had been neither; or, at least, had been guilty of so very venial an - offence as to be let off unpunished. The lessees of theatres have quite enough to contend with in the prejudices and superstitions opposed to them, without adding to their difficulties by refusing magisterial help to render the theatre a respectable and enjoyable amusement. We look upon it, too, that there is danger in the matter. So long as the public feel that the law is so administered that they may rest surely in its protection and the justice of the decisions, so long will they leave it to vindicate their rights and punish offences; but if the suspicions arise that offenders do not receive their deserts; that they are shielded and thus encouraged in their outrages; that administration is lax where it should be severe, and severe where it should be Jenient, all history shows they will adopt summary measures, and take the punishment into j their own hands. We do- not wish to 1 see such a state of affairs in Dunedin.