Coumil  (Eng.)  (1892),  1  (^  B.  190;
R.  V.  London  Co.  Council  (Eng.)
(1894),  71  L.  T.  638;  Leeson  v.
General  Council  (Eng.)  (1889),  43
Ch.  D.  300,  C.  A.
•■'»  People  ex.  rcl.  Kieley  v.  Lent
(1915),  100  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  550;
1.52  N.  Y.  Supp.  18.
''^Klinqer  v.  Ryan  (1915),  91
Misc.  (N.  V.)  71;  153  N.  Y.
Supp.  71;  153  N.  Y.  Supp.  937.
Re-affirming  the  doctrine  of
People  ex  rel.  Kieley  v.  Lent,  that
since  a  municipality  could  not
enforce   a   Sunday   closing   ordi-


RIGHT   TO    LICENSE    ON    CONDITION


361


Where  the  theatre  license  is  issued  by  one  bureau  and
the  liquor  license  by  another,  the  theatrical  licensing
bureau  is  not  thereby  necessarily  deprived  of  its  control
over  the  sale  of  licjuor  in  the  theatre.  The  licjuor  licensing
bureau  may  be  reciuired  to  first  secure  the  consent  of  the
other  bureau  before  issuing  its  license  to  the  theatre.""


naiu-o  !)>'  finos  or  imprisonment
unless  exprc-ssh/  nulhorized  by  the
I>egislature,  it  could  not  accom-
plish the  same  purpose  by  the
conditions  of  a  license.
But  see:  A7/w  v.  No.  American
Theatres  (Eng.)  (1915),  2  K.  B.
61;  112  L.T.  101 S;  \V.  N.  61;  79
J.  P.  297:  i;}  L.  ("..  H.  735;  84
L.  J.  (K.  Ji.)  1077;  :U  T.  L.  U.
201.  A  condition  contained  in  a
license,  that  the  theatre  be
kept  closed  on  Sunday  was  held
valid,  and  might  lawfully  be  im-
posed.
Also  to  same  efTect,  London  Co.
Council  V.  Bcrmomhey  Bioscope
Co.  (Eng.)  (1915),  27  T.  L.  R.
141.
In  this  connection  see:  City
of  Mnhilc  V.  Kin- nan  (1911),  .54
So.  (Ala.)  102:  Yorkrille  v.  Bing-
ham (l!K)!)),(n  Misc.  (X.  V.)  mG;
US  N.  Y.  Supp.  7.5;i.
See  also:  Theatre  De  Liix^  v.
