The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-01
HOLDS "a THEATRE MANAGERS
THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST NET
CALFE, MAGISTRATE SAYS.

C0nried. Klaw. Erlnnser. lIamnerstein,
Dan Frohman and the Rest to Take tho
Case Before the Supreme Court for Re.
yiew--Crime Chars Ia Misdemeano
Magistrate Pool decided yesterday to
hold twenty-four members Of the Theatre
cal Managers Association for trial for
criminal conspiracy. committed when tie
organization Passed a resolution barring
james $. Metcalfe, critic for Life, from the
forty seven theaters controlled by memt ers
Of tho organization.
Magistrate Pool handed down his decision
in the West Fifty-fourth street court yester-
day. Mr., Metcalfe and Assistant District
Attorney Krotel we're in court. Counsel
for the defendants were notified to produce
their clients In court as soon as possible.
In the complaint made by Mr.. Metcalfe,
who was kept out OF a number Of theaters
after the resolution was passed, twenty
six theatrical men were named as defend
ants, but the names OF two we're stricken
out by Magistrate Pool One was Samuel
s. Shubert, who was killed recently in a
railroad wreck, and the other is Edward
G. Gilmore, who, Magistrate Pool decides,
did not vote for the resolution or confirm
the action OF his associates but disavowed
it, The twenty-four held are:
MARC KIAw. JOSEPH L. SPRINGER.
ABRAHAM l.. ERLAHoER. LBo THIIER.
OSCAR HAMMERsrEIH, W. c. WATSON,
DANIEL FR0HMAN. PERCY WILLIAMS,
CHARLKs NJ RURSHAM. W. c. JORDAN,
JOSEPH X. BROOKS. ALY HAYMAE,
HkINRICH CoNRIED, GEORGE KRAUB,
JAMES II. CURTIN f.. S. STAIR.
MARTIN DICKSON, W. r. KEOaH.
FRANK MCKEE. AL l.. LIcHrRNsrEIN,
j. W. RosKNouEsr. ANTONIO PASTOR.
A. l.. BRApEN, HENRY b. HARRIs.
w. NJ. X. Olcott, who is counsel for some
Of the theatrical men, said last night that
undoubtedly be agreed to sue out writs OF
habeas corpus and certiorari and have
the case reviewed in the Supreme Court.
To get writ it will he necessary for one
OF the defendants to be committed. The
crime charged is misdemeanor,, triable
in the Special Sessions court, unless the
defendants have the cases transferred
to General Sessions for a jury trial. In his
decision Mag istrate Pool says:
Il hold that any member Of the asso-
ing, who, either directly or indirectly. |
carried out the resolve Of the meeting. or |
threatened to do so, or who prevented the /
complainant from entering their respective
theaters on his presenting himself for
Of admission, Is liable to the same charge
as IL present at the meeting and voting.
1T is claimed that the theaters o. the
defendants are private property and not
public places, and, therefore, they had a
from these places. l am Of the opinion
and IN that respect differs from an in
dividual's castle or his private place. 1t is
and has been my uniform rule to so treat
and consider theaters as such, by pun
ishing persons who commit disorderly
conduct in such places, and think that has
Teen the rule OF my brother Magistrates
in cases where the otense charged was
committed in theeter. The theaters
them. are devoted to the use Of the public
and rightfully are at least quasi-public
places
section 1888 of the Penal Code states
'theatep or other public places under the
head Of public places.
1t was oontended by the theatr ical men
that a theater ticket was personal license
revocable at any time and they tied an
opinion Of the Appellate Division in the case
OF q ticket Spectator against the Knicker-
in that particular case notices had been
displayed saying that tickets
purchased or sold by spectators would
be refused at the bc1 Office. and adds
hat whether or not ticket is license
revocable at the pleasure Of the vendor
was net before the court in that case. 70
hat it's opinion was obiter and net bind
ing on lower court. He concludes
Il hold a person cannot be denied adj
mission to theater solely on the ground
hat re had writ en- the criticisms rejecting
On one or more members Of the Thcat er
Managers Association.
From the testimony In this case and
he law as we understa and it. I conclude, !
and it appears to me by the dispositions. /
It at ements and test imony in this case that
he crime complained OF charged in the
complaint has been committed and there
s sufficient cause to believe the within
named defendants are guilty Whereof