Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1917-05-23
PROSECUTOR WATT
OUTLINES POSITION
ON SUNDAY SHOWS
CITES CASE OF PEOPLE VS.. DIX
ON TO LOCAL MINISTER'S WHO
CALLED UPON HIM MONDAY
Prosecuting Attorneys Office,
Ionia County, Ionia, Mich,
May 21, 1917.

Ionia County, Ionia, Mich,
May 21, 1917.
Editor Banner:
Some question has been raised in
the past few days in relation to the
operation of a moving picture show
in your city on Sunday, and today /
was waited upon by a delegation of
ministers from your city to whom
read the decision of our supreme
court in the case of the People VS..
Dixon, and who appeared to be sat
isfied that under the decision of that
case the only remedy against a per-
son who conducts a moving picture
show on Sunday is in the nature of
civil suit to recover the penalty pro-
vided by statute.
Some criticism was made that the
sheriff did not stop the running of
the moving picture show inasmuch as
notice had been served upon him that
the show intended to run. But this
criticism was unfounded, as was
clearly shown in the case of People
VS.. Dixoff above cited, and which in
volved the question of the right of an
officer to disperse a crowd assembled
at a moving picture show in the alb
sence of disorder, violence or breach
of the peace.
/ am inclosing you copy of the
syllabus of the supreme court deci-
sion, and am writing you this letter
so you can use it in any manner you
see fit for a matter of news, but /
am quite desirous that the position of
the sheriff and the prosecuting at
torney in connection with this matter
may be explained to the readers of
your paper. Yours truly,
Woff
People VS.. Dixon, 1873 Mich, D. 307.
"The enforcement Of section 1912,
2 Comp. Laws, forbidding shows,
work, etc, on Sunday, under penal
ty of not more than $1,000, must be
by a civil action to collect the penal
ty; the act Of conducting a moving
picture show on Sunday does not
amount to a misdmeanor and may
not be prosecuted by an Indictment;
nor did the assemblage Of the parties
owning or operating the theatre and
thirty or more persons in such
theatre for the respective purposes
of conducting and witnessing the eX-
hibition of moving pictures and the
refusal Of such persons to disperse
as commanded by the sheriff amount
to a violation of section 1884,
Comp. Laws, relating to riots and un-
lawful assemblages, SO as to bring
the violators within the authority for
summary arrest provided for by that
statute, in the absence of disorder,
violence or breach of the peace"
The Ionia Standard of Monday re-
lative to the matter says:
"Rev. w. A. Bliss, Rev. William
Doty, Rev. Blair, and Rev. Pease, all
of Belding, were in the city this af-
ternoon to consult with Prosecutor j.
Clyde Watt about the prospects for
restraining Belding theatre owners
from having shows on Sunday. For
the first time in about two years
Belding had a show open a week ago
Sunday, May 13. Eugene Warner
opened his theatre that day. 1t was
about two years ago that he supreme
court made test case of the trial of
People VS.. Dixon, also Belding case,
tried by H. c. Hall, then the prose-
cutor Of this county, and made it i'm
possible to convict a respondent uns
der the act to which the people ap-
pealed. According TO the decision
then handed down Ga reversal of the
decision of the circuit court here),
the only possible method of combat.
ing the Sunday opening is to sue the
offender for $1,000 for each offense,
which of course would not cut profits
down very noticeably.
Prosecutor Watt exhibited the
supreme court decision of that date
today and stated that the explicit
wording prevented any possibility of
making arrests except in cases where
some disorderly conduct is alleged.
'The only possible redress is to
wait until the next morning and then
sue for $1,000 he said
"A similar case was tried here be-
fore the Dixon case came up, but it
was impossible in this city to secure
even a justice court decision against
the respondent. F. G. Lauster, Sr.,
the jury regarding the state act TO
which appeal had been made as a lead
letter"