The San Francisco call., 1905-04-15
SEAW ELL HOLDS
WITH THEATERS
Decides Police Have No Right
to Close Places That Vio-
late the Fire Ordinance
GIVES PROPER REMEDY
Says Law Provides for Pun
ishment Of Transgressors
in the Criminal Courts

The criminal court, Judge Seawell
holds in a decision handed down yes
terday, is the temple of law wherein
owners and managers of theaters may
be dealt with for violations of the fire
ordinance. The right does not vest In
the police, says the court, to close any
place of amusement, no matter how
fiagrantly it may transgress the regu-
lations of the local legislative bodies,
the sole remedy resting in the proper
and continued punishment of those who
persist in these illegal acts.
The opinion of the court was reached
in the suit instituted by the Baldwin
Theater Company to restrain the police
and Board of Works from closing the
doors of the plaintiff company's vaude-
vile house on Market street. Judge
Seawell granted the injunction as
prayed, but not until after he had
pointed out to the defendants a rem
edy they could pursue if it is their opin-
ion that the theater is unsafe and a
menace to life.
The testimony taken in this case
Judge Seawell held, shows that prior to
opening the theater the plaintiff COR
poration submitted to the Board of
Works it's plans and specifications for
the construction of the theater and they
structed in accordance with these
plans and specifications, and subse-
quently, on November 26, 1904, a license
was issued to the company upon pay
ment by it of $201 to carry on it's busi-
ness. BY virtue of this license the
company conducted a vaudeville show
until January 16 last, when the Board
of Works notified the police to close the
place, and the police did close the the
It ha Of
Board of Works that the theater was
being conducted in violation of or
dinance 8S of the Board of Supervisors.
In its complaint for an injunction
the Baldwin Theater Company reeited
the facts regarding the construction of
the theater and the procuring of a IL
cense to conduct show therein, and
pointed to the fact that 1t had spent
large sums of money in constructing
the theater is under contract for the
salaries of actors and others and is
liable for the rent of the premises
whether conducting its performances
or not.
1t is the opinion of the court that
there is nothing in the ordinance in
question giving the Board of Works
any power outside of the right to issue
permits after it has determined that
the provisions of the ordinance are to
be obeyed. This done, its power ends.
There is no allegation in defendants
answer that, the, theater is unsafe and
there is no allegation that it is a
nuisance.
Hence, even if the defendant cor
poration had not paid a license, the
court holds that the police have no
power to close the theater conducted by
it. The ordinance provides that for
violations thereof a person convicted
of such offense shall be liable to fine
of $500 or imprisonment for six months,
or both A person violating the or
dinance would be liable civilly for the
sum of the license and liable criminal
~ for the offense, but this does not give
the police power to close the theater.
They are entitled only to the remedies
prescribed by the ordinance for it's vio-
lation.
THE claim has been made by the
plaintiff herein that the ordinance is
oppressive; but for the purpose of this
action / will assume that it is valid, "
SAYS the court in conclusion. How
ever, an injunction will issue restrain
ing the police and the Board of Works
from closing the premises conducted
as a theater by the plaintiff. .