Sunday Concerts.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7923, 3 October 1904, Page 5

Sunday Concerts.

Charges for Admission.

Conviction Recorded.

Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., gave judgment at the Court this morning in the case against. E: Buckingham. The Magistrate said:—

I . The defendant is, charged under section 16 of the Police Offences Act, 1884, with transacting- business oh Sunday, September. 18th, in a public place, by. giving a musical' entertainment in the Zealandia;. Hall. td: which persons' were chai-ged for admission. It is admitted by defendant that he did gave a sacred recital in the Hall on the night stated, and that he advertised it in the newspaper and by means of leaflets in both of which it was stated, •' Patrons to chrcle and stalls are expected to contribute Is, to the pit 6d." A large notice was also posted up in front of the hall and facing the street announcing the entertainment. That an entertainment was being given was apparent to. anyone passing along Broad-street, which is a public place. I hold, therefore; that the entertainment was given in view of a public place. The question remains—" Did the defendant* by giving that entertainment transact business?" "Business" is a very wide term." In Smith v. Anderson, 50 L. J. eh. 43; if is defined by Jessel, M.R., as meaning " anything which occupies the time and attention and labor of a man for the purpose of profit." Accepting that definition for the purposes of this case, one test of whether defendant did transact business is "Was any charge made for admission ?'' If it can be shown that some charge, however small, was made, or that anyone was-refused-admission without payment, I think it must be held that business-was being transacted. I leave Mr Glubb out of the question altogether for I am satisfied he was not there in charge of any door- but solely in his capacity of caretaker of the hall and on behalf of the owners. There were three places of entrance to the hall and a doorkeeper at each, Mrs Buckingham (until relieved by Mr Polsen) at the circle; Mr Humphries at the stalls, Mr Butler at the pit. I am satisfied that at all three a charge was made. As to the circle entrances Constable De Loree says he heard people ask Mrs Buckingham " How much ?" She replied " One shilling." They then paid the ls and went in. Francis lanson says that while he was standing at the front door he saw a man go upstairs and come back for rchange of half-a-so-vereign. Alex. Bolstad' says he and a mate went upstairs expecting to. get-in for a- "silver coin." He asked Mrs i Buckingham " How much'?" She re- I plied ls each upstairs, and he then paid 2s, being ls eachjor himself and his mate, and they both went in at the stalls entrance. Constable De Loree says he heard people ask the doorkeeper the charge, and his reply was Is. The boy Drury, who was called for the defence, was-at* this entrance with several other boys for some time. He saiw no one go in without paying, and thought everyone' had to pay. Immediately after the visit of the constable, when he found there could be no charge, he and the other boys went in. without paying. At the pit entrance Constable De Loree says he saw several boys. try. to go ,in without paying, but the doorkeeper, Mr Butler, prevented them. No'attempt was made to disprove this evidence. Mr Butler was not called as a witness, though all the other doorkeepers were. Defendant is convicted and fined 20s, and costs, 355.