ADMISSION TICKETS.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1033, 27 December 1872, Page 2

ADMISSION TICKETS.

A caso of Borne interest to the general public was brought before the R.M's Court at Blenheim, on the 9th instant. An individual visited a Church Bazaar, held in the Wairau Theatre, paying for his own admission there and also for a young female accompanying him. This latter person, it was alleged, had previously outraged the public sense of propriety by some equivocal relations with one of the dignitaries of the Province, and, on her appearance at the assembly, she and her companion were hissed at and requested to retire. They refused, and thereupon were put out, and subsequently an action was brought against one of their alleged assailants, a member of the committee, for assault and battery The counsel for the defence, in pleading that the assault, if any, was justifiable, said : "There was a very far-spread delusion existing in the public mind, that a person had a right to remain in a place of public amusement because he had paid for his admission This was a great mistake; no persou had such a right to remain without the permission of the proprietors, as the fee for admission did not create that right. The Baznar had b*?en opened for a special purpose in connection with the Church of England, and his client was one of the Committee, and by virtue of that was. for the time, possessed of all the rights of ownership or occupancy. He would prove to the satisfaction of the Bench that the fact of misconducting himself was nothing to the point. The learned counsel then quoted at con r sidci'able length the case of Wood v. Ledbittcr, in which tho plaintiff had, he said, a much better caso than this, for he had not in any way misconducted himself. It occurred at the Doncaster Races in 1813. The plaintiff had purchased a ticket for the grand stand, for which he paid a guinea—not merely Gd for admission, but a ticket entitling him to admission to the stand for the three days of the races. Lord Eglington was the steward of the course, and he had ordered the plaintiff to be removed from tho close, or precincts of tho stand. Lord Eglington had no real ownership of the land, it was the town moor. He warned'the man to depart, and as he did not go he had him put out, and that too without returning the guinea, the payment of which it had been ruled by the Judges of Eng-. land' did not give him the right to remain ; it was no bargain or agreement of a binding nature; it could be revoked at any moment, and if tho person did not go out when told to, the proprietors.for the time beirg had the right to put him out, and so long as no unnecessary violence was used there was no case for the person so ejected, He thought this example would show that his client Was perfectly justifiable iu what he had done ; that he had tho right to say to any objectionable person, go out, and if ho did not go, to put him out. It was not necessary to assign any cause; no matter how absurd the reason assigned may be, the right Was the Bame. The case was dismissed.