Keith & Proctor Amusement Co. v. Bingham — 125 A.D. 791

p. 791

Keith & Proctor Amusement Company, Respondent, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants.

(No. 1.)

First Department,

May 8, 1908.

Headnote

See head note in Shepard v Bingham, (ante, p. 784).

Appeal by the defendants, Theodore A. Bingham, as police commissioner of the city of Mew York, and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Mew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York on the 14th day of February, 1908, continuing a temporary injunction pendente lite.

Theodore Connoly, for the appellants.

Maurice Goodman, for the respondent.

The question here is the same as that presented in the case of Shepard v. Bingham ( 125 App Div. 784 ), decided herewith. In this case the whole police department were enjoined so long as the plaintiff’s entertainment shall be given in such a manner' as not to disturb the public peace or amount to a serious interruption of the repose and religious liberty of the community. There would thus seem to be imposed upon the police officers the question of determining whether a performance of the plaintiff would be a serious interruption of the repose and religious liberty of the community, with the danger of a commitment for a contempt in case they should disagree with the court as to whether there was such an interruption.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.

IvIoLaughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ., concurred ; Laiighlin, J., in memorandum.

I concur in the reversal of the injunction order in this case upon the grounds stated in my concurring memorandum in Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham, ( 125 App. Div. 780 , 784), argued and decided herewith, which apply to the facts here presented.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.