We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
252
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
conditions it may easily become one, as when large crowds gather in front and extend in line, boisterous patrons congregate, noises issue from the theatre, and the like.
The most frequent complaint is that great crowds are attracted to the theatre, and extend in long queues down the street, obstructing entrance upon and egress from adjacent property, and interfering with the free use thereof.
Where this is a common occurrence, it unquestionably constitutes a nuisance, and may be abated by appropriate remedy.73 This is true not only of a theatre, but of other
nuisance per se, and a declaration by the city would not make it a nuisance unless it was such in fact. [Village of Des Plaines v. Foyer (1888), 123 111. 348; 14 N. E. 677.]”
To the same effect: 1 Hawkins P. C. (8th Ed.), 693; Barber v. Penley (Eng.) (1893), 2 Ch. 447; Bellamy v. Wells (Eng.) (1890), 63 L. T. N. S. 635; Ex parte Whitwell (1893), 98 Cal. 73; 32 Pac. 870.
Holt, C. J., in Betterton’s Case (1695), Holt K. B. 538; 5 Mod. 142; 5 Kin. 625. “It hath been holden that a common playhouse may be a nuisance if it draw together such a number of coaches or people, etc., as to prove generally inconvenient to the places adjacent. And it seems that playhouses, having been
originally instituted with a laudable design of recommending virtue to the imitation of the people, and exposing vice and folly, are not nuisances in their own nature, but may only become such by accident.”
73 Lyons, Sons & Co. v. Gulliver (Eng.) (1913), C. A. (1914), 1 Ch. 631; 30 T. L. R. 75. Defendant conducted a theatre. A large number of people assembled in and about the theatre before each performance. Long lines were formed extending for some distance from the theatre, five persons abreast. Plaintiff’s premises were adjacent to those of defendant. Held that the collection of such crowds constituted an actionable nuisance, and that the failure of police to keep proper gaps for passage of public and