DISTURBANCE IN THE PRINCESS THEATRE.

Evening Star, Issue 3549, 8 July 1874, Page 3

DISTURBANCE IN THE PRINCESS THEATRE.

To the Editor. Sir, —Had I been a lawyer I should not hare felt surprised at your correspondent “ Ejusdem Generis ” differing from me in Sy construction of the Vagrant 4ct, for iese gentlemen seldom do agree in their opinions. I venture, nowever, to recommend your correspondent to give a little more attention and study to “ Dwarris on Statutes,” and a little less to Wharton’s Law Lexicon, and he will be much more likely to come to a correct conclusion upon the subject now under discussion [ do not question the soundness of the maxims he has quoted, but I regret he should, have committed himself to an erroneous opinion, perhaps owing to his inexperience in his profession or his championship of Justices’ justice. Your correspondent evidently agrees with me that the first part of the enactment is separate and distinct from the latter part, and that the magistrate was wrong in mixing up or confusing one part with the other—this is one point gained.

doming now to the question—what is the proper 1 construction of the words public street, thoroughfare, or place ” —I assert that the only intelligible construction is by, reading the adjective “public” before each of the noups, thus—“ public street.” “public thoroughfare,” “public place.” Had the word “ other ” preceded the word ** place,” then I agree with your correspondent that the offence must be committed in a place of a similar or like nature to a street or a thoroughfare ; but the omission of the word “other” 4 before “place” gjyes to the word “place” a general application goyerned only by the adjective “ public,” thus leaving my friend “ Ejuadejp Generis” out in the cold. Having thus disposed of the words “street” and “thoroughfare,” the question is reduced to the simple one whether or not a theatre is a public place. Your correspondent does not appear to dissent from my views on this point, and I will only further suggest that if the terrace of the Government Buildings is a public place, why is not the hall in the Post Office? And if the

jetties are public places, why not the railway station ? and according to a local in your paper last week, a man was convicted for making a disturbance in a church : then Why should ihe theatre man escape ? I did not allude to Dr Carr’s case as being io the present, but’merely to show the strange and contradictory opinions that occasionally fall from the magisterial Bench ; and for the moment I could not think of a better example than Dr Carr’s case afforded. The magistrate deliberately adjudicated that the entertainment did not require a license, and immediately afterwards told the person informed against that he had better take out a license to avoid trouble in future. Strange law, I repeat. * It is not my intention to discuss the ruling in Dr Carr’s case. If the magistrate was satisfied that the entertainment did not oome within the category of those specifically mentioned in the Ordinancesweeping, general words, as your correspondent calls them—the ruling would be correct, because the concluding words “ other entertainment” would bo restricted in their operation to the kinds of entertainment preyjously mentioned. EJusdem generis here Applies without dopbt. ' But, sir, does not this section of the Licensed Theatres Ordinance furnish a case in point for my previous contention ? The word “ other”is here inserted, and restricts the operation of the statute. In the Vagrant Act it is omitted, and thus the word “ place ” has a general application to any public place, as well as a public thoroughfare or street,— I am, &0,, Thea.tbe-gobr.