River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1914-02-05
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
Continued From First Page

holder of the ticket who is refused
admission may only recover the
cost of his ticket and such expenses
as he was put to in reaching the
theater-in other words his direct
financial loss. In a few cases,
where a person was elected without
adequate reason, damages were al
lowed for the insult offered, but
this is not generally done, especial
ly where the management has any
reason for revoking the right to
attend the performance which the
ticket holder has purchased.
If, through mistake, a patron is
given ticket calling for a wrong
seat or gets into the wrong seat, he
may be required to change to an
other seat, and if he resists and
causes disturbance he may be
forcibly removed. Unless he be-
comes disorderly, however, he may
not be elected from the theater.
While theater is a private en-
terpr1se the state may, nevertheless,
exercise a wide degree of control.
II may censor the entertainment
offered through proper officials
Thus moving picture house may
be required to show its films be
tore an official censor and secure
his approval before displaying them
TO the public. Sunday perform
ances may be prohibited, safety and
sanitation insisted upon, etc., ect.
In some states the legislatures
have regulated the right of the
alter to refuse to sell tickets to
whom it will In such states the
rights of the theater goers are in
creased by the privileges and rights
granted by special law. In not
few states this legislation has been
aimed to prevent any discrimination
against negroes, and where state
legislatures have so acted the courts
have enforced these laws. Illinois,
for instance, has specifically enact
ed that no theater shall deny adj
mission to anyone because of race
or color. or bar them from any class
of seats. Where such statute
exists, the theatre management no
longer has the broad right of re
fusing admission to whom it will,
which was spoken of above.
The activity of the ticket specu-
lators is a phase of this question
that is Of no little Importance to the
theater-going public. Law makers
and theater managers have joined
in efforts to stamp out this evil, yet
not with complete success. That
the judges have not all looked upon
ticket speculation as an evil is
shown by the following quotation
from judicial opinion:
The sale of a theater ticket at
al advance upon the original pur-
base price, or the business of re
,elling such tickets at a profit, is
10 more immoral or injurious to
public welfare or convenience, than
is the sale Of an ordinary article of
merchandise at profit. 1t does
not injure the proprietor of the
theater; he must neccess arily have
parted with the ticket al his own
price and upon his own terms be
fore such resale can be made 1t
does not iniure the second buyer;
he must have had the same oppor-
tunity as the first buyer to purchase
similar ticket, and no greater
right thereto; and having neglected
the opportunity, or being unwilling
20 undergo the necessary incon
venience, and willing to pay a
higher price rather than forego the
privilege which the other by his
greater diligence and effort has
obtained, the transaction is just so
far as he is concerned. The fact
that such tickets are obtained and
resold at an advance does not com
pei the manager of the theater to
put the tickets upon the same plane
as ordinary articles of merchandise.
He can make them non-transferable,
and place in the contract of sale
any conditions necessary for the
protection of himself or his patrons,
and by printing such conditions on
the tickets, he can prevent their
resale to innocent buyers"
AS the judge points out, the
theater management may make
their tickets non-transferable, and
and by refusing admission to a
second purchaser prevent any re-
sale of tickets If the attention of
the purchaser is drawn to such con-