DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 274
Citation Numbers: 51 Pa. Super. 59
Judges: Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlad, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Filed Date: 7/18/1912
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
Opinion by
The question involved in this case is substantially the same as the one decided in Com. v. Donnelly et al., post, p. 61, and was argued with it, in which an opinion is filed this day.
This case is distinguished from that one in that the property of this defendant is not equipped -with any stage or facilities for vaudeville, and the entertainment consists only of life motion pictures — moving pictures — and il
The judgment is affirmed.