Lilac Theatre Case.

Dispute About Tickets in Suva.

THE lawsuit which was known in Fiji as the “Lilac Theatre Case” was brought to a close on April 5 in the Commissioner’s Court, Suva. The case was one in which three Indians, J. L.

Narayan, C. K. Kapadia and S. P. Ma haraj, brought action against E. A. Grif fiths and J. F. Grant, proprietors of the Lilac Theatre, for £15 damages and £2/19/- costs arising out of an incident at the defendant’s theatre on March 2.

The three plaintiffs visited the theatre on that night and were shown to seats in the dress circle. Shortly before the performance began, they were requested by Mr. Griffiths to leave their seats on the ground that the tickets concerned had been issued to another person. Evi dence at considerable length was ad vanced by both sides and was of a very conflicting nature and, at times, heated exchange between counsel occurred.

Evidence as to the manner in which plaintiffs were required to leave their seats and as to how the tickets for the seats were obtained conflicted; but the plaintiffs alleged that two of them, namely, J. L. Narayan and C. K. Ka padia applied for seats in the morning at the box office of the theatre and, on being referred to Mr. Grant, the second defendant, were told that this was quite in order. They said they gave him 5/to pay for the seats and were told that tickets would be sent to them. It was further alleged that, during the day, an additional sum of 2/6 for a similar seat for the third plaintiff, Mr. S. P. Maharaj, was sent with a note to Mr. Grant. In the afternoon a ticket for the three seats was received by Kapadia.

The defendants, on the other hand, said that when the two plaintiffs applied for tickets, they were informed by Grant that he would consult the booking office and send the tickets on later. The money which had been tendered was returned to plaintiffs and the seats were issued to a Mr. Storck. The defendants then al leged that these tickets, which were subsequently transferred without the authority of the management to the plaintiffs, were sent to them by Mr.

Storck later in the day.

The Commissioner said he was un able to accept the defendants’ version of the transaction and found that the tickets and not the money were received by the plaintiff Kapadia. The plaintiffs, having paid for their tickets and pro ceeded to their seats in the theatre, were entitled to view the performance; and a breach of contract was caused when they were requested to leave. Evi dence was brought by the defence to show that Mr. Kapadia was connected with a rival picture house; but it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he visited the Lilac Theatre with any other motive than that of an ordinary patron wishing to see the performance.

The defence said at this point that the policy of the theatre was to restrict the sale of dress circle tickets to cer tain classes: but Grant considered the three plaintiffs respectable persons who would, in ordinary circumstances, be admitted to the theatre.

The Commissioner (Mr. Hallam Roberts) gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and assessed the damages suffered by them in the sum of £5/7/6 and costs £2/19/-. The late Mr. H.

Crompton was defendants’ counsel and Mr. S. H. Ellis counsel for plaintiffs.