DISTURBANCE IN THE PRINCESS THEATRE.

Evening Star, Issue 3545, 3 July 1874, Page 2

DISTURBANCE IN THE PRINCESS THEATRE.

To the Editor. Sir,—Your leader on this matter has drawn forth an extra judicial opinion from his Worship—the opinion amounts to this : that by no straining of the language of the Vagrant Act, 1869, can a theatre be called a public place jso he said the other day with respect to Dr Cair’s entertaiumen , and it therefore was not.liable to be licensed ; and yet in the next breath he administered a little friendly advice to the doctor by recommending him to take out a license—strange law this—aud to my mind the decision re-

gardiug this disturbance is about on a par with the one just quoted. By mixing one part of section 4 with another, his Worship’s remarks are apt to mislead: the words “or within the view or hearing of any person passing ttherei n apply only to the using of obscene language in any public street, thoroughfare, or place. Had the legislature intended these words to refer to the subsequent part of the enactmeut under whicU the prisoner was charged, “and any person who shall use any threatening, abusive, or insultiug words or behaviour, in any public street, thoroughfare, or place, with intent.” etc., it would either

have repeated them after the word “place,” or would have omitted the words “public street, thoroughfare, or place,” in the second instance .altogether. 1 fail to see the applicability of the oase Lewis v. Arnold, quoted by his Worship, except to show the error of his own judgment, because in that c.se the defeudauts were held to be guilty of an assault committed within a theatre, and, moreover, in view of a constable who was present.

ow, if a theatre is not a public place, why should it be licensed as a public place 1 ? Why do the public congregate there; how is it that the lessee com s under ad manner of restrictions and regulations for the protection and security ol the public ; arid why does the law stipulate that constables shall have free ingress and egress ? To reduce the argument to an absurdity - If it i 8 no t a public place, it must be a private place; and, if a private place, what right has a man to be turned out, which his Worship admits is an allowable proceeding ? As the decision in this case practically excludes respectable persons from frequenting public places of amusement, if the law allows rowdyism and blackguard language to bo used with impunity within the walls of 4

theatre, they will have no alternative but to stay away ; and, moreover, what becomes of the many previous convictions for similar eff. nces,'undersimilar circumstances? Surely, if Mr Bathgate is right, we ought to resort to sackcloth and ashes for a period, to obtain forgiveness of the sins of former magistrates. —I am, &c., Theatre-goer. Dunedin, July 3.