Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BREACH OF AMUSEMENT TAX.

OFFENDER CONVICTED

FINED £lO AND COSTS

At yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr B. Page, S.M., Thomas Powell, picture proprietor. leasee of the Town Hall, was proceeded against on two charges of breaches of the Amusement Tax. This was the second ease of its kind in the Dominion, the previous one being against a resident in the Auckland district, who was recently convicted and lined £lO. The two charges against Powell were; (1) Did admit a person for payment to a iiicture entertainment otherwise than by a stamped ticket where the price of admission exceeded sixpence, and" (2) Did use a ticket more than once.

Inspector MeKinnoh conducted the case on behalf of the police. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The inspector said that on August 14th, Air Cunningham, an inspector from the Stamps Office, visited defendant’s theatre. In the ticket office he saw a number of tickets in a heap alongside the ticket-seller, and people that came into the theatre were sold these tickets instead of from the roll. Air Cunningham purchased a ticket, and was handed one from the heap. He gave the ticket to the collector, who retained it instead of tearing it in two and returning half. The number of Mr Cunningham’s ticket was 17249,, and upon examining the roll in the ticket box he found the last number was 17239, so that there should have been about 80 people in the one-shilling seats —as a matter of fact, there were only aboul 30 present. The ticket sold to Mr Cunningham had apparently been sold and used at a previous entertainment. He called Stanley M. Cunningham, who staled that he was an inspector in the Stamp Office, Wellington. On August 14th last he came to Foxton and visited Powell’s picture theatre. Tie stood just iimide the’ doorway for some little time in such a position as to be able to watch the seller in the ticket box. A number of people came in, and some were sold tickets 1 rom a heap alongside the seller, and others frinn the roll. Witness purchased a ticket, and was handed one from the heap. It was numbered 17249, .and had the appearance of having been used before. He went up the stairs, and banded the ticket |o the collector, but the collector did not return half of the locket to him. He later spoke to the ticket seller about selling tickets other than from the roll, and she admitted having dune so, stating that she had not been instructed to sell from the roll only. He interviewed Powell. who was ill at the time, and he said that he hadn’t instructed Hie seller to sell from anywhere but the roll; also that the seller was “newyto the game,” and had only been irr the box once previously. He inspected .(he roll of tickets, and found the last number to be 17329, so that there should have been about SO people in Hie shilling seats. He counted them, and found there were only, about 30 there. There were about 18 to 20 tickets in the heap. ‘ To defendant: You certainly told me the girl should sell oft the roll onlv.

To the Magistrate: He saw-three tickets sold from the heap. Percy W.,.Withers, Deputy-Com-missioner of Stamps, stated that Mr Cunningham 'made - the visit under his instructions. The ticket in question was forwlirded to the office attached to the report. He explained the method adopted by the Department in collecting the Amusement Tax. Rojls containing 500 tickets were sold to the picture proprietors, for which they paid the amount of the tax on same, pins the cost of supplying the tickets. Half of the ticket should be retained by the purchaser as proof that the tax had been paid. If Ibis half wore not detached there was the possibility of the ticket being used again, on which the Department would not receive the tax.

The defendant, Thomas Powell, stated that on the night in question he was not in the theatre, as he was ill. He had a young lady in the ticket box, who was “not up to the game,” she having been in there only once previously. He had questioned her about the complaint, and she explained that, in order to avoid making a mistake 1 in tearing off the tickets when purchasers asked for same, she had first torn off a number and put (hem aside so that she could hand them our quickly when required, and without making a mistake. He would like to see the ticket numbered 17249 produced, as according to his returns (produced) the first ticket sold (hat night was numbered 17.408. and the last 17428. The instructions he gave to the seller were to sell iroin the roll only. As far as the tearing off and retaining portion of the ticket was concerned, he considered it was the duty of the purchaser to do this. In any ease, he had noticed that when travelling companies came round the purchaser’s portion was very rarely returned to him. He produced a number of tickets in proof o£ his statement.

In answer to Mr Abhors. witness said the tickets produced wore used by the “Bon Tons on their recent visit to Foxton.

Continuing his evidence, Mr Powell said surely the Inspector should have taken possession of the tornoff tickets he said h.e saw, and produced them in Court. He should also produce the ticket he said he took appy, Baden Powell, ticket collector on the night in question, said he ye?

membercd a stranger coming into the hall that night. He gave witness his ticket, and lie put it in the box. The man went to the top of the stairs, and then returned to the ticket box.

The Magistrate said he did not think a conviction could be entered on the first charge, and Inspector McKinnon asked that that charge be withdrawn. On the second charge, using a ticket more than once, defendant was convicted and fined £lO. On the question of costs the Inspector said that they would only ask for Mr Cunningham’s expenses, and defendant was ordered to pay this amount, £2 5s Od, plus 7s Court costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19180928.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,039

BREACH OF AMUSEMENT TAX. Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

BREACH OF AMUSEMENT TAX. Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert