SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1931, Page 2

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS

FURTHER, PROSECUTIONS. AUCKLAND, September 30. Further prosecutions for bolding entertainments on Sunday without the consent'of the Auckland City Council were brought by the City Council before Mr R. W. McKean, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court. Three charges were preferred against the New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Rationalism Inc. Mr Butler appeared for the Uitv Council and Mr O’Dea for the defendant organisation, pleading guilty to the three informations. Mr Butler said the entertainments were conducted on three consecutive Sunday evenings following the last prosecution, despite the fact that no permit had been applied for.

Mr O’Dea said the defendants were pleading guilty to save trouble amt expense. The Association only wanted to obtain, the opinion of the Supreme Court concerning the legality or otherwise of the proceeding in the theatre. Now that the appeal against the Magistrate’s decision had failed, the Association would cease to promote Sunday night entertainments.

The Magistrate said there was very little t-easoh for not imposing the full penalty in each case. However, he would accent counsel’s asmrance that the entertainments would definitely cease, and also the explanation that the Association continued to hold entertainments as it thought there were some prospects of winning the appeal. A fine of £5 with costs £1 11s was imposed on each of the three charges.

CAFE PROPRIETOR, CHARGED. A similar charge was brought by the City Council against Stirling Rogers, in respect of the Civic Winter Garden. Mr Armstrong appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. Mr Butler said Rogers was the proprietor of the Civic Winter Garden, used as a cabaret a.nd restaurant. On Sunday, August 30th., a full picture programme was presented between 7.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. The holder of a Is ticket was entitled to see the programme and have supper. There were between 800* and 900 people present. No permission or consent had been given by the Council. M.r Butler added that he was assured that the defendant had given up the idea, of holding any similar functions. Mr Armstrong said he wanted to dissociate this case from the other cases. The Winter Garden was a. restaurant or cafe, and was conducted as such on every day of the week. Mr Rogers had taken the mistaken view that if m-iiaie could n4>o pi aye dysrpi ctu re s could be screened.

“He did it in the best of good faith,” added counsel. Defendant vva.s fined £lO and costs £2 12s 6d.