The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-04-09
DRAMATIC CRITIC TEST CASE EXCITES
 KEENEST INTEREST
What is Limit of Theatre s Power To Exclude Un-
 welcome Reviewers?


 appreciable extent. also, the general | theater going public, which loves to see it's own estimate of any new | Broadway production reflected or re- viseds as the case may be, in it's ia vorite newspaper. expressed deep in terest yesterday in the fate of the bill introduced in the legislature yester-I day by Senator Ogden L. Mills, | which is designed to prevent the ex- clusion from playhouse without due cause of any purchaser of a ticket.
 The (bil1, it is understood, is an aftermath of the legal fight between the New York Times and the Shu- berts, resulting from an edict of the 1 theatrical managers excluding in flu ture from all of their theaters Alex ander Woollcott. the Times dramatic l critic, in consequence of a criticism of the play, Taking Chances,' which, i the producer a11ege, contained stric- lures upon the play So bitter as to constitute Just cause and excuse for barring the newspaper writer.
 Senator Mills bill. which is drawn to take effect Sept. next was sent at once to the codes committee, from which a report is expected within a day or two. The vital clause in the measure which is intended to amend the present statute, folIows
 Every person within the juris-
 diction of the state shall be- en-
 titled to the full accommodations,
 advantages, facilities and sprivi-
 Ieges of licensed theaters and
 places of amusement, and a per-
 son who, as owner. lessee, man
 ager or emp1oye of a, licensed
 theater or place of amusement,
 excludes without just cause or
 excuse from such theater or place cT1fx 5c
 ty Of a misdemeanor.
 Realizing the powerful influence back of Senator Mills in support of his bill, it was the belief of a ma jority of theatrical folk seen that the measure soon will be on the statute book.
 Coincidenta1 with the appeal to the. Legislature gesterday the battle for the right Of a dranlatic critic to fol- low his calling was raging stornly in the supreme court hereJbefore Justice Hendrick. For two hours counsel urged pro and con, quoting enough theatrical laws and lore to fill vol umes.
 The proceedings were to decide whether a temporary injunction granted by Justice Blur, upon appH- cation of the Times. restraining the Shuberts from keeping up the bars against it's critic should be continued F. rights statute.
 Alfred A. Cook of Leventritt, Cook & Nathan, presented to the court the ] Times side. He reviewed Ghe facts l of the disputeS asserting that after the exclusion of Woo1lcott, the Times re- fused further complimentary tickets sent to the paper by the Shuberts and l that thereafter the Times critic pur- 1 chased his tickets with cash He argued that Woollcott's exclusion on these purchased tickets was an in- fringemert upon his rights both as a critic and as a citizen.
 The lawyer told of the critics griev- ances, beginning with his review ot
 Taking fChances-'s
 s'The Shuberts,,' he said. ..did not l like that criticism and wrote to the l Times that WoolIcott thereafter would be excluded from their houses and requesting the return of all open \ ing night complimentary tickets I which had been sent to the Times.
 This was done and the next day l the Shuberts sent new batch od complimentary tickets, saying they l would welcome any other represents tive of the paper to their theaters except Woo1lcott.''
 MT. Cook said the Times sent the tickets back with a letter stating thai the Times did not recognize the man ager's right to say to it: '.Seud us a critic we like and we will admit him to our shows
 Nothing happened there after, said MT. Cook, until WooIcott tried to en- ter the theatre where s%The Revolt'' al was playing, on purchased ticket. II Just as thelcr1tic was passing into the T auditorium. the lawyer recited, argus .l eyed minions spied and elected him. Then it was that Wool1cott and the Times procured the restraining or -1-@-- FI I- - -N-T \ the play sTri1by''s which was reyiv- ed at the time.
 At this point MT. Cook argued tli at the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of James Metca1f, critic of Life, who was barred from a mum Der of New York theatres because of alleged personal attacks upon the business methods of certain nnanag- CTS, had no bearing on the present case. He said the Metcalfe case had been brought under the Penal Code thee rite alleging conspiracy, an6 for the barring of Metcalfe. who Mr. Cook said, twas barred fol grounds that would meet the ap- provaI of any court
 The lawyer argued that this case was entirely different. The law was clear, he said, on the point that il denied the right of managers to ex. clude any class of men just because they are class and that, therefore they might not exclude a dramatic critic because of his vocation ''The public is certainly entitled fc Being barred from seeing the per. ? formance for itself, except that par of it pays $2 on the opening night how is it to tell whether it is worth. of being witnessed by themselve. and the members of their families?
 "It is a. vital question of publi, good whether theatrical manager can exclude a dramatic critic be cause his criticism do not measure LII to their wants.''
 William Klein. the Shubert attor ney, then spoke for his side. He ar gued it had been settled in law tha
 any manager can let in or excIud
 from his theatres any one he wishes
 any times he wishes The law holds