The law of motion pictures (1918)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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 255 The close proximity of the theatre to a church has also been held to constitute a nuisance.76 So, too, where patrons were continually trespassing on the adjacent owner’s property.77 (1888), 123 111. 348; 14 N. E. 677. Where the noise and commotion of a public resort reaches such a point as to interfere with the rights of the public, they will constitute a nuisance. Commonwealth v. Cincinnati, etc., Rd. Co. (1908), 139 Ky. 429; 112 S. W. 613. An indictment ‘charging that defendant permitted the congregation of large numbers of persons at its public resort on and near a public highway, who made loud noises, and otherwise misbehaved themselves to the discomfort and annoyance of the inhabitants residing in the vicinity, sufficiently alleged acts constituting a nuisance. See also: Cramer v. Klein (1908), 127 A. D. (N. Y.) 146; 111 N. Y. Supp. 469; Jung Brewing Co. v. Commonwealth (1906), 123 Ky. 507; 96 S. W. 595; Levin v. Goodwin (1906), 191 Mass. 341; 77 N. E. 718; Palestine v. Minor (1905), 86 S. W. (Ky.) 695; Town of Davis v. Davis (1895), 40 W. Va. 464; 215 S. E. 906; Schleuter v. Billingheimer , 9 Ohio Dec. (Repr.) 513; Paris v. Com monwealth, 4 Ky. Law Rep. 597; Jenkins v. Jackson (Eng.) (1888), 40 Ch. D. 71. 76 Nahser v. City of Chicago (1915), 271 111. 288; 111 N. E. 119. Held that a motion picture theatre within 200 feet of a church constituted a nuisance. Hamlin v. Bender (1915), 92 Misc. (N. Y.) 16; 155 N. Y. Supp. 963; aff’d 173 A. D. (N. Y.) 996. Where large crowds congregate about the entrance of a moving picture theatre to such an extent as to cause at times congestion of travel in front of the building and where those attending a church in the immediate vicinity of the theatre are called upon to pass and repass it, an injunction may be granted restraining the operation of the theatre, on Sundays, as a nuisance. 77 Cronin v. Bloewecke (1899), 58 N. J. Eq. 313; 63 Atl. 605. Defendants conducted baseball games at their park. A number of balls fell upon plaintiff’s premises and persons trespassed thereon to recover the balls. Injunction