Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-16
JUDGE pRENrrs REFUSED.
To Grant writ Of Mandamus in ii

To Grant Writ of Mandamus In the
Seaboard Theatre Case.
Yesterday morning, in the Circuit
| Court of the city In vacation, Judge r.
II. Prentis refused to issue a writ OF
mandamus to compel Commissioner of
the Revenue r. L. Herbert to Issue q
theatrical license to w. A. Smith to
carry on the vaudeville house known
as the "Seaboard Theatre"
The Commissioner of the Revenue
theatre were both on the same preri-
Uses, hence the ordinance passed last
April by the City Council was eminent
ly applicable to this case. And. as Is
known by the public, refused to Issue
to Mr.. Smith the ordinary theatrical
license of $40 weekly.
Upon this Mr.. Smith employed coun-
sci, Niessrs. Chas. T. Bland and VIM.
II. Parker, who submitted to Judge
Prentis yesterday morning an applica-
ton for writ of mandamus to compel
Mr.. Herbert to issue the license asked
Tor. Captain John w. Happier appeared
In the interest Of Mr. Herbert, and after
filing formal demurrer to the petit
ton offered by the PLAINTIFFS counsel.
submitted his answer to same. He
argued on the ground of erroneous as
easements, and. said he. If the assess
mcnt of $500 for Il place of the kind.
for which application had been made
adequate remedy under the statutes,
and quoted sections J511 and 512 of the
Code of 1887. He also set forth, from
his side of the question. how, when and
why writ of mandamuS should issue.
MIR. Parker. clearly and concisely,
made plain the language of the petit
ton and explained the law as he un-
derstood 1t in matters relating to pro,
ceedinEs of this kind, and quoted from
Minor Institutes, volume 4, part list,
to sustain his position.
Mr.. Bland, In closing the argument,
drew comparisons with other buildings
In the city with the Scaboard Theatre
and said that. though they were under
the same roof. they were In his judg-
mcnt separate and distinct premises.
He cited the Seaboard Block as being
under one roof. yet ga'cry store was sep
arate and distinct and. therefore, Mr..
Langhorne's store could not be the
Barlow. The Oxford Hall, said he, was
another illustration of what constl-
tuted premises. Under that roof is a
playhouse and a saloon. one having no
connection with the other; set, accord
ing to the contention of the Commits
sioner of the Revenue In this case, the
bar and play house were on the same
promises.
In giving his decision Judge Prcntis
said he differed somewhat with the
counsel on both sides of the case. The
fact that partition separated the
theatre and bar did not alter the fact
that they were on the same premises
what constituted premises being n de-
batable question. Judge Prentis held
that the $500 ordinance made 1t a tax
which must be paid by the proprietor
OF the bar-room on the same premises
with which theatrical exhibitions are
given Therefore, the proprietor of the
bar In the Seabonrd Theatre building
must pay the theatre license of 50 SOC
year else the theatre would not be
allowed to run. The writ was refused
Later in the day Mr.. Smith paid the
license required by the ordinance and
opened his theatre. which he had closed
pending Judge Prentis decision.