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.
THEATRE A NUISANCE
253
forms of public exhibition and advertising.74 The crowd or line need not necessarily be noisy or unruly or bois
regulate the crowds was no defense.
Dissenting opinion by Phillimore, L. J., that every trader had the right to make his shop as attractive as possible and was not responsible for crowds who collected before his shop; that defendant was not responsible for collection of crowd before the hour at which they were invited to attend; that it was the duty of the police to prevent obstruction of passageways; that formation of a line or queue did not constitute an actionable nuisance.
Barber v. Penley (Eng.) (1893), 62 L. J. Ch. Div. 623. Plaintiff kept a lodging house adjacent to defendant’s theatre. She sought to enjoin defendant, claiming that access to her premises was shut off by the great crowds which collected in front of the theatre two hours before it opened.
The court held that if after the opening night of the show crowds continued to gather in front of defendant’s theatre, that would constitute a nuisance; but as it appeared from the affidavits that the police had taken control and no nuisance existed at
the time when the application for the injunction was made, no injunction was necessary and hence refused. Defendant, however, was required to pay plaintiff’s costs of the action. To the same effect: Wagslaff v. Edison Bell (Eng.) (1893), 10 T. L. R. 80.
Inchbald v. Robinson (Eng.) (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 388. A temporary injunction was refused because of insufficient evidence before the court, although it approved of the rule of law “that the collecting of crowds immediately before a residence, so as to block up the approaches to it, might be a nuisance, and that if the collection of those crowds was to be attributed to the act of a particular individual, that individual might be restrained from the commission of that act.” The statement of the law by Lord Cairn as above quoted was approved on appeal by Lord Justice Selwyn.
Walker v. Brewster (Eng.) (1867) , L. R. 5 Eq. 25. Held that the collection of large crowds in front of defendant’s amusement resort constituted a nuisance and should be enjoined.
74 Shaiu’s Jewelry Shop v. N. Y.