The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1907-01-05
.FEAGIN SAYS CITY
HAS MADE NO CASE
Bromberg Comes Forth With
CoIorS Flying
PLACE is NOT NUISANCE"
Numerous Witnesses Appear In Court
and Some of Them Rather Enjoy
the Talking Machines
Performances.
PLACE is NOT NUISANCE"

Unless there comes a change in the
present opinion Of Noah 3. Feagln, judge
of the police court those who have en-
deavored to Dust Arthur c. Bromberg
and his moving picture performance from
the Brown Marx building, will be COM
PEELED unwillingly to listen to the music
of his photograph for 10 long years.
As a result of the trial yesterday aft
ernoon, young Bromberg is flying his
oolors from a pinnacle more lofty than
ever. BY a preponUeranee of testimony
the "Edisonla" was declared not null
sance, and the kindred charge against
the defendant of refusing to abate a
nuisance was, in consequence, not sus-
tanned Concerning the third CHARGE DO
ing business without license Judge
Feagin, still holding the matter up. de-
clared that in his present opinion, the
city had no case"
Therefore, the "Edisonia" will still oper-
ate, as the gathering of additional knowl-
edge from the deci-ions of various su-
preme courts will require considerable
time.
The little squabble, prior to the trial
yesterday afternoon, had attracted deal
of attention, and had assumed proper
tions unduly large. The court room was
we'll filled when the trial began.
History of Case.
The owners of the Brown-Marx build
ing, in which the Bromberg moving pic
ture show is located, have endeavored
to Gust the defendant from his place,
be ause they said his business was a
nuisance. Several times has the defendant
been arrested. but out of each trial he
has come with colors flying. The City
Council then declared in a preamble to
a resolution "that the place was source
of worry to the other inmates of the
building, and that it was a nuisance"
following up this introduction with the
stereotyped, Therefore, be it resolved. T"
The decision was to issue no license to
the proprietor. This was done, although
Bromide offered 5000 in gold for 1907
| license.
Then Bromberg was arrested for do
ing business without a license, and again
for refusing to abate nuisance after
notification and warning.
Until the trial in the police court yes
1 terday afternoon the matter stood in this
shape: Bromberg was determined to oper-
ate and to fight the case; the city had
issued instructions to prefer a new charge
ON every passing day.
Declared No Nuisance.
1t was agreed to try all three cases
at the same time To this end, numerous
witnesses were introduced to prove the
place a nuisance. f, NJ. Griffith, travel
ing passenger agent of the Frisco, with
offices adjoining the "Edisonia'" declared
that the music did not worry him at
| all. r. ID Burnett was not allowed to
testify because he knew nothing per-
sonally, but had heard several things
| w r. c. Harding, president of the First
| National bank, was not allowed to tell
concerning a conversation that he had
had with f. w. Bromberg, holder of the
! original lease. on the space occupied by
the "Edisonia" DR.. Robertson swore that
he was not worried by the music. Dr.
| Austin of the Collier Drug Co., nearby
neighbor, rather enjoyed the music. y
| Mr. Gelder. proprietor of the restaurant
| Immediately across the street, was not
annoyed. Hill Ferguson, in passing alons
the street, was not worried by the mu'
sic. and he "often stopped to listen tc
the strains" A witness named Moore
|
office. ]. c. I<ilgore, travelling freight
agent of the Central of Georgia railroad
was not annoyed by the music. w. r
| Coleman, a civil engineer. whose office
is on the second floor of the Brown
Marx building, Immediately above thu
"Edisonia" whose calculations are nee
essarily accurate, and in the making OF
which It Is necessary that he exercise
extreme care, found no source of trouble
from the music. Bernard Starnes of the
Frisco office. was not worried by the
music. Mr.. Faulkner. the well known
cigarist. was annoyed not bit"
After this testimony, the Judge thought
1t unnecessary to question other witnesses
who were present and anxious to testify
The charge that the "Edisonia" was a
nuisance was thus lost by the city, and II
necessarily followed that the charge ire
fusing to abate a nuisance was lost, too
The Third Charge.
The entire matter then devolved into
the third cnarge-"doing business without
a license"
Then followed the next questionable
the city a right to arbitrarily judge d
place a nuisance before the courts have
so declared?"
| The eitys position was that it had q
right to prohibit, restrain or regulate sa,
looms, gambling places and places oil
amusement. Judge Feagin thought thai
the city should have this right in matters
pertaining TO saloons and gambling
places, and certain places of amusement
which per Sc were bad or immoral, blu
thought that this specific place of amuse
ment inasmuch as it had been proved nc
nuisance, and no charges of immortality
had been brought against it, should b,
considered an exception.
The defense took the stand that the sec
ton of the code forbidding doing bushes:
without license was intended to give thu
license collector basis on which to worl
and collect revenue, 1t was contendet
that If the license was withheld wher
applied for. it was preposterous to pre-
sumo that person should be prosecuted
for not doing that which was impossible
| l.. c. Leadbeater, who conducted the de-
Tense, stated: IF we are denied a license
after applying for it, a subsequent coral
larry would be that we can do business
without a license"
Following these arguments, the court
held up the case for future disposition
Judge Feagin stating his present opinion
1.-THE city has no case"
Supreme Court Decision.
In course of the trial, it was pointed
out that the proper procedure for the
| defense would be the requirement of a