Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1929)

56 BETTER THEATRES SECTION OF December 21, 1929 CLOSED The New EASY ELECTRIC HEATER Automatic Temperature Controlled Designed especially for Theatre Organ Chambers, Box Offices, etc., but will prove useful in many other places. — 0 — W rite for particulars — 0 — Made in 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 watt capacity KAUSALITE MFG. CO. 8129 Rhodes Ave., Chicago, 111. SHOWING INTERIOR Patented The New FLUSH WALL AISLE LIGHT /•r Ramps, Stairways and Corridors in Theatres, Hotels and Hospitals Made in ttco sizes standard, and Junior for use over tables in hospital patients' rooms. OUR STANDARD CHAIR TYPE The Palace Orp h e u m, Milwaukee, the brightest spot on The White Way." Signs That SELL! THE brilliantly lighted Milne Made Electric Signs are the signs that sell. They shout your show message to the crowds that fill your theatre. The best Theatres in the country are using MILNE Signs because they are convinced that this "showmanship" is built right in. Send us the name of your theatre and let us submit a colored sketch to you — no obligation on your part, MILNE ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY 614-618 Cherry St. Milwaukee, Wis. Long Distance Phone Grand 7666 Chicago Branch: 4352 Broadway Crae.Iand 4289 MILNE SIGNS Changeable Letter Marquise or Canopies ims know and avoid York Hound Door Large theatre charts have noticed a marked decrease in the number of attacks by burglars on their theatres following the installation of York Round Door Chests. Insurance companies ■ grant it their lowest \ burglary rate. Write your name and address on the margin of this advertisement for compler i information. York Safe & Lock Company York, Pa. pair to avoid injury to patrons, yet the law is well established that any person who performs a hazardous act, when realizing the dangers associated therewith, is not entitled to recover damages for an injury thus sustained. This point of the law is well illustrated in Murphy v. Amusement Company (166 N. E. 173), which exemplifies the law applicable to amusement park operators as well as to theatre owners. In this case it was disclosed that a patron of an amusement corporation was seriously injured while riding on a moving platform. The injured patron filed suit against the amusement company for damages, contending that the injury was caused because the device was operated at a dangerous and high rate of speed. The amusement corporation defended the suit on the contention that one who realizes the hazard of his act, accepts all the dangers connected therewith so far as they are obvious. In accord with this argument, the higher court held the amusement corporation not liable, saying: "One who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary, just as a fencer accepts the risk of a thrust by his antagonist, or a spectator at a ball game the chance of contact with the ball. . . . The plaintiff (injured patron) was not seeking a retreat for meditation. . . . He took the chance of a like fate, with whatever damage to his body might ensue from such a fall." "Renewal" and "Extension" Contrary to the opinion of the majority of persons, there is an important distinction between the legal meaning in lease contracts of the terms "renewal" and "extension." For illustration, in Maryland Theatrical Corporation v. Manayunk Co. (146 Atl. 805), a theatre corporation leased a lot upon which to construct theatre improvements. The lease contract provided that the corporation lease the lot for six years with the option to renew it for an additional term of eight years, and with the further privilege to renew it another ten years at the expiration of the eight-year period. Litigation developed over the legal meaning of the contract, and the court held this lease contract to be actually a lease for six years plus eight years, plus ten years, or 24 years if the corporation failed to terminate the lease at the end of either of these periods. In holding that the corporation was not required to notify the landlord of his intentions to renew the lease, the court said : "Under the ordinary form of lease, there is a distinction between a stipulation to renew the lease for an additional term and a stipulation to extend it for an additional term, since the former requires the making of a new lease and the latter does not. . . . The question of whether the use of the word 'renewal* is to be taken to require the execution of a new contract, or whether it is to be construed as meaning an extension