OCR Text |
Show SUNDAY PICTURES LAWFUL JUDSE PARSER DECLARES The operation of moving picture shows on Sundays in Provo is legal, according- to a decision made by Judge George P. Parker Tuesday in the case of Provo City vs. the Ashton Theater company and Raymond E. Sutton. Judge Parker sustained the demurrer filed in the case by the defendants, thereby reversing the, decision of Judge George S. Ballif of the Provo city court, who had ruled that it was unlawful to operate picture shows on Sundays. The decision of Judge Parker will be appealed to the supreme court by the city, according to a statement of Mayor 0. K. Hansen. In sustaining the demurrer of the defendants, Judge Parker declared "that in order to read the prohibition of picture shows into the terms of the city ordinance on the matter is to call forth a very vague and uncertain implication." implica-tion." He maintains that if it is the policy of the city commission com-mission to prohibit moving picture shows on Sunday, an ordinance should be passed to that effect in no uncertain terms. To prosecute the moving picture operators under the terms of an ordinance so vague and uncertain as the present is unfair, in the opinion of Judge Porker. Section of Chuplcr :',!), revised iirdhiaiiros nf l'nivn eity, niil i-whj.-h tiie drt'cinl.-inlN wore am-sit-d, rciids in part :is t'nlhiws: Kwry porsuii who sh;. 1 1 within the limits of tills city fish, hunt -r indulge in any c::licir amncnifiiL nr i'i:il:c in nny nnitor:'ss;i ry, conspicuous or noisy .seriihir luUn- or lu ; open :i!;y ::v, shop store, or ;ny other phn-e 'to curry on any kind of bnsias ur ' Mnus'-ment.'' ! .Iud-e Parker ipiotes s"vrral cas-s . . fried in various stntes lo show Ui;:t j iin e. press pmhihil inn ,,f the in:l;r.v- : I ft'l net nilisl ,c in;n!e ill ihc .nli-j .nli-j nance in order to nr;ke il eff:".; ;V'-. "As WC lllidevsi ;;), ;. pusilj, jj I of the city ; Heme.. s.t .-; .1 m!-'-I'arker in his d.-c;sinn. IIc i::im 'that picture sho,vs are prohil.iu-d j in I'rovM cily by virtue of this (..'di-! (..'di-! nance by rea'.-;i of ti:(j wu:ds 'or. ' iiinuseinciit.". 1 "In other words, it is; admitted Dint under an;' of Hie other provisions provi-sions of the ordinance it could not, ; be constructed ns proh ibi I i n pictun; shows, for tin; reason that, pi "t are -hows con el not be any outdtuu amu.-cnienl ; now is il claimed, un-d-r the provisions of ihi:- ordinanc that lee iip'-ratioii of n picture sho wil bin 1 he t en us of t he ordimi no.j is a business. In oilier words, ha we understand it, the mutter of vJii'tl'-r or not a picture show is .'"' 'n1 'led in the provisions of the f' V'-oiier ordinance prohibiting certain cer-tain hiiMnc " :es on Numbiy has hero-li.Iore hero-li.Iore b"eii fleiermincd by our own supi-i me court on an nppiieaijon for a writ of jiiaiidaui'is against the city loan of Loiraii Cily. It is ulso ad-lailled ad-lailled Hint at the time of the; t:.t ::'! ,,f the fi.re-oiim ordinance " 1 : !' a I hi'i;; ."s a ph-Jure. show vwt-- lioijw op:r;.k'd in l'vovo city." |