
    Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Spiers.
    
      Taxation — Moving picture place — Theatrical or operatic entertainment.
    
    A moving picture place cannot be taxed as a theatrical or operatic entertainment where it appears that the place is not equipped with any stage or facilities for vaudeville, and the entertainment consists only of moving pictures and illustrated songs.
    Argued May 16, 1912.
    Appeal, No. 274, Oct. T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 2,751, for defendant on case stated in suit of Commonwealth v. Fannie C. Spiers.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlad y, Head and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Case stated to determine liability for a theatrical license tax. Before Staake, J.
    The material facts set forth in the case stated were as follows:
    1. Fannie C. Spiers is the proprietor and manager and lessee of the property situate at Nos. 222, 224 and 226 East Girard avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, known as the “Girard Palace,” and under her agreement with the owner of said property, is required to pay all necessary license fees and taxes.
    2. Performances are given at the said place three times daily, in the evening, except on Saturday, when four performances are given, one in the afternoon and three in the evening. These performances consist of life motion pictures — “moving pictures” — and illustrated songs for the amusement and entertainment of the audiences.
    3. The time consumed for the exhibition of moving pictures is about eighteen minutes each, consisting of four reels of 950 feet to 1,000 feet, and an illustrated song taking about two minutes, or a total of seventy-four minutes.
    4. A charge of five cents is made for the performances.
    5. The building is not equipped with any stage, and has no facilities for vaudeville. The moving pictures are displayed on a fixed and permanent mirror screen attached to the wall.
    6. The said building has 540 chairs for the audience.
    7. The building is designed and constructed according to the laws relative to moving picture parlors and has no balcony.
    8. The said Fannie C. Spiers pays a fee of $100 to the city of Philadelphia for the conduct of said moving picture place in accordance with the ordinance of councils approved February 20,1908.
    
      Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant on the case stated.
    
      Murdoch Kendrick, for appellant.
    
      J. Louis Breitinger, for appellee.
    July 18, 1912:
   Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

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 illustrated songs. Whether these songs are given by mechanical appliances or by human voices is not stated. The building is arranged for moving picture shows exclusively, and the defendant pays a fee of $100 to the city in accordance with the ordinance of council of February 20, 1908.

The judgment is affirmed.  