Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1930)

56 Better Theatres Section November 22, 1930 ticipating in the management of the business, yet he was the president of the corporation, owned practically all of the stock and that for these reasons, both Kuehl and Hansen were personally liable. The higher court approved this verdict, stating the following important law: "We think the record also fairly discloses that Mr. Hansen thoroughly understood the necessity of making a good showing on this so-called financial statement. ... If the charges are true, the appellant has suffered a loss because it relied upon the respondents' (Kuehl and Hansen) representations as to material facts, which representations were false and known to be false when made." Also, it is interesting to observe that in Schley v. Dixon (24 Ga. 273), it was held that it was a legal fraud for trustees of a corporation to make false official reports which prejudiced the rights of the creditors of the corporation. On the other hand, in order that readers thoroughly understand the various phases of the law on this subject, it is well to know that no official of a corporation can be held personally liable for the corporation debts on the basis of a false financial statement, unless the testimony proves conclusively that the creditors relied exclusively upon the financial statement when extending the credit. For instance, in the leading case of Cohn v. Broadhead (71 N. W. 747), a statement made by a mercantile agency, such as Dun's or Bradstreet's, contained not only positive statements of fact made by the official sought to be held liable, but also in addition contained estimates made and opinions given by the mercantile agency itself. Credit was extended on the basis of the entire statement and not solely on the fraudulent item made by the official. Therefore, since the creditor did not rely solely upon the official's false statement, when extending credit, the court held the corporation official not personally liable. Agreement to Repair Usually all reasonable provisions in a lease contract are valid and enforceable. This statement is particularly applicable to clauses which relate to repairs on theatre buildings. For example, in Cote v. Landau (29 S. W. [2d] 224), it was disclosed that a person named Landau leased a theatre building for a period of nine years and three months, at a monthly rental of $200. The lease contained provisions that all necessary repairs to the interior of the premises should be made and paid for by Landau. Controversy developed between Landau and the owner of the building over the fact that in April the theatre was closed by order of the fire marshal pending the making of repairs to the walls and exits. Landau contended that the bad condition of the building was from natural wear and decay, which rendered MORE THAN EVER BEFORE y s s s WIDE PICTURES DEMAND OF MOTOR GENERATORS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CONSTANT VOLTAGE NOISELESS OPERATION UNIFORM SCREEN BRILLIANCE SPARKLESS COMMUTATION SAMUELS bTABILAPC MOTOR-GENERATOR Is specially designed and extensively used to insure perfect projection in any size up to 1 500 amperes. FOR THE EXHIBITION OF MAGNASCOPE . . VITASCOPE . . GRANDEUR . . REALIFE . . WIDESCOPE AND OTHER ENLARGED PICTURES AUTOMATIC DEVICES COMPANY 737 HAMILTON STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA. the building dangerous and unfit for the occupancy contemplated under the terms of the leasehold and that to render the premises fit for occupancy it was essential that the building be rebuilt. The owner of the building sued Landau to recover the cost of the repairs and the rent during the period of the controversy. It is interesting to observe that the court held Landau liable and explained that any reasonable provision in a lease contract is valid and therefore is enforceable. Operating Show on Sunday Ordinarily the various higher courts in all states have upheld reasonable Sunday closing laws. Of course, any unreasonable law of this nature is invalid. Also, it is important to know that the higher court will reverse the lower court's decision when the instructions to a jury do not conform with the law upon which the conviction is based. For illustration, in Brockman v. State (28 S. W. [2d] 820), the manager of a theatre, and the operator of the picture projecting machine, were arrested on a charge of violating a Sunday closing law. The warrant, or indictment, charged that they were "the proprietors, agents and employes of a place of public amusement, to wit: what is commonly known as a picture show," etc. The testimony in this case sufficiently showed the employes to have been guilty of doing the thing charged, and it was shown that the manager was the manager of a picture show owned by the Paramount Picture Show Corporation. In his charge to the jury the judge submitted the question of the guilt of the manager and operator "as agents and employes of the proprietor of a motion picture show." Since it was shown that the state law provided that the owner of the theatre must be specified, the higher court reversed the lower court's verdict, which held the employes liable. The higher court said: "It is elementary that the charge (of the court) should be confined to, and limited by, the allegations contained in the indictment. . . . The legislature has written in this statute that persons who are agents and employes . . . must be characterized as the agents and employes of some private person, or else agents and employes of some firm, corporation or company. In charging the offense in the language used as descriptive of the attitude of appellants, the learned trial judge fell into error. We know of no authority, and are cited to none, holding that to merely characterize the employer or principal as 'a motion picture show,' or as 'a place of public amusement,' describes any person, either natural or artificial." Evidence of Prior Crime The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a person is