A History Of Film Exhibition And Reception In Colonial Hong Kong: 1897 To 1925
Displaying 21 - 40 of 747
21
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1906-07-13
Summary:

Sergeant Gordon bought eleven men before Mr. Hazeland charged with gambling at No. 369, Queen's Road West. The first and the second defendant was charged $50 and the rest $3 each. Another gambling raid was made by Inspector Smith in which he arrested 17 men in the Chung Hing Theatre at Po…

22
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1906-11-13
Summary:

For entering and stealing an umbrella from the servants' quarters of the Chung Hing Theatre, a Chinese was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment and four hours' stocks.

23
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-01-03
Summary:

An unemployed actor got fifteen days' hard labour for stealing from the Chung Hing Theatre, a jacket and a pair of shoes.

24
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-01-09
Summary:

Constable Ingham proceeded against the manager of the Chung Hing Theatre, at Po Hing Fong, for permitting people to stand in the gangways of the theatre. Fined $50.

25
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-02-02
Summary:

Friday, February 1 – Sergeant Fenton summoned the manager of the Ko Shing Theatre for permitting persons to stand in the gangway contrary to his licences. The Sergeant said he found about 200 men standing in the gangways of the galleries. Mr. Haseland fined defendant $25.

26
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-02-18
Summary:

Tuesday, February 12 – Tang I, an unemployed pleaded guilty to stealing a long coat from the Chung Hing Theatre. He got three weeks and four hour stocks.

27
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-03-14
Summary:

Wednesday, March 13 – Li Fong Shan, a returned coolie from South Africa, was charged by Sergeant Gordon with stealing a woollen jacket. The complainant, who is a hawker, said he was selling his wares near the Ko Shing Theatre when defendant suddenly snatched up his jacket and made off. He…

28
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1907-05-03
Summary:

Thursday, May 2 – Two coolies for fighting in the Ko Shing Theatre while the performance was on were fined $3 each.

29
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1909-05-26
Summary:

At the Police Court yesterday a Chinese was charged with the theft of a pair of shoes. Complainant, also a Chinese, was a spectator at a Chinese theatre at Yaumati the other day.

30
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1913-12-18
Summary:

Chicago, Nov. 14 – Athletics and entertainment are encouraged by the governor of the prison and the State Board of Control, to arouse the interest and spirit of the men under detention. Moving pictures are shown several evenings a week at the Anamosa Prison, and the governor says that these and…

31
Headline: The Opium Case
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1915-12-10
Summary:

Mr. Hazeland heard further evidence in the case in which Edmund Walter Hickrath, 31, merchant, of England, Ethel Rearden, 37, widow, of New York, and Madam Emich Delcaire, 32, of France. The witness did not know that the defendant was posing as a cinematograph proprietor.

32
Headline: The Opium Case
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1915-12-16
Summary:

Mr. Hazeland heard further evidence in the case in which Edmund Walter Hickrath, 31, merchant, of England, Ethel Rearden, 37, widow, of New York, and Madam Emich Delcaire, 32, of France. A witness said Cohen told her the boxes contained cinema films.

33
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1915-12-17
Summary:

The opium case continued. Mr. J. H. Taggart, manager of the Hongkong Hotel, said he had known a man named Sydney Cohen for about ten years. To witness's knowledge he was connected with the cinematograph business as he had seen films which he carried.

34
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1916-06-07
Summary:

Police Sgt. McDonald was in the role of defendant yesterday, being charged with assult by the proprietor of the Chung Fa Mo Toy cinema. Appearing to prosecute for the Chinese proprietor, Mr. W. E. L. Shenton said that at the evening exhibition of pictures on May 27 the defendant was watching the…

35
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-07-31
Summary:

The Manager of Kau Yue [sic] Fong Theatre was summoned for failing to renew his license for dramatic performances.

36
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-08-03
Summary:

The managers of the Victoria, Hongkong and Empire Theatres were charged at the Police Court yesterday. The summons against the Victoria Theatre was for failing to keep two buckets of water and a wetted blanket immediately outside the box containing the cinematograph machine. There was a similar…

37
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-08-24
Summary:

A Chinese ex-constable, employed at the Po Hing Theatre, was charged with assaulting another Chinese. Both men were bound over in a sum of $50.

38
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-08-26
Summary:

The manager of the Po Hing Theatre was summoned for not having the proper amount of fire appliances as required and for not exhibiting the license specifying the fire appliances required. The defendant was fined a total of $35.

39
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-08-31
Summary:

Summonses against the Victoria Theatre, the Tai Ping Theatre, the Hongkong Theatre and Empire Theatre were heard yesterday at the Police Court. The case of the Victoria Theatre, which was summoned on three counts, was heard first, the charges being for neglecting to close a passage or gangway…

40
Newspaper Source: South China Morning Post
Publication Date: 1918-09-11
Summary:

The manager of the Kwau Yue [sic] Fong theatre was summoned for failing to have the required number of firewater buckets during the performance as specified in the licence.