Some Things about Theatres. leave he must, " will he, nill he." Leadbitter did his lordship's behest, but Wood would not go, so after a reasonable time, Leadbitter put him out, or to use the classic expression of the defence, molliter manus imposuit, and Wood, finding himself outside the desired haven, without his guinea, which had not been offered to him, brought an action for assault and false imprisonment; but he was no more successful in getting a verdict than he was in getting on the grand-stand. Early in the eighties a colored man and his wife purchased tickets for reserved seats in a theatre. They entered the street door, but were refused further admission and were forcibly ejected by the attendants. The husband appealed to the courts for justice and for damages, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania gave him the price of his tickets, the loss occasioned by his wife's illness (brought on by the rough ejectment), and all the expenses he was put to in consequence of the wrongful treatment. The Court said : " Whether the tickets conferred merely a license or some thing more is immaterial. If they gave only a license to enter the theatre, and remain there during the performance, it is very clear that the agents of the defendants had no right to revoke it, as they did, and summarily eject Peer and his wife from the building in such a manner as to injure her. We incline to the opinion however that as purchasers and holders of tickets for partic ular seats, they had more than a mere license. Their right was more of the nature of a lease entitling them to peace able ingress and egress and exclusive pos session of the designated seats during the performance on that particular evening." (Drew v. Peer, 93 Pa. St. 264). This seems to us a very sensible view of the whole mat ter. In Louisiana a verdict was sustained of $300 against the proprietor of a theatre for refusing a man admission because he was colored. (Joseph v. Bidwell, 28 La.
323
Ann. 382.) In Illinois the law is similar. (Baylis v. Carry, 11 III. App. 287.) But away down in Missouri, there being no State legislation on the subject, it was held that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the rules of a theatre reserving certain seats for the exclusive use of white people. (Young vs. Judah, 35 Cent. L.J. 269.) Sometimes a genuine mistake is made about the sale of tickets for reserved seats; in such cases, if the management is civil about it, the disappointed ticket-holder must be philosophical. So a Pennsyl vania Court decided. A visitor had en tered and taken a seat in that part of the house for which his ticket was sold; an usher at once notified him that that particular seat was taken and tendered an equally good one near by, the man refused to move and so was forcibly ejected. The judges told him that he could not main tain an action of assault, if the seat in question had been actually and in good faith sold to some one else. (Common v. Powell, 10 Phila. 180.) If three persons are told on entering a theatre that there is room, when in fact there is not, their proper course is to leave and demand the return of their money; they are not justified in getting into a private box, and if they do, the proprietor may remove them, using no more force than is necessary. (Lewis v. Arnold, 4 C. & P. 354.) Although a proprietor of a theatre ad vertises a sale of reserved seats at certain prices he may yet, without damage to himself, refuse to sell certain of the seats even if asked for. We mean danger through the action of the courts; what a wild Westerner would do we trow not. (Pearce v. Spalding, 12 Mo. App. 141.) The proprietor has a right to make the admission tickets " not transferable," and if this be done neither the original ticket buyer nor the transferee can recover back
