Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1930)

58 Better Theatres Section November 22, 1930 Richardson's Handbook on Projection Some of the many angles dealt with are: Arc Light Source; Carbons ; Condensers ; Electrical Action; Projection Angle; Generators ; Fuses ; Insulation Lenses ; Light Action ; Optics ; Picture Distortion ; Practical Projection ; Resistance as it applies to the projection circuit; Spotlights; Switches ; Wiring ; The Microphone ; Recording Sound ; Sound Reproduction ; Light Valve Recording; Disc Record Recording; Cleaning and Splicing Sound Film ; The Photo-Electric Cell ; Electrical Condenser ; Amplifiers and Their Care; Horns and Loud Speakers ; Motor Control Box, etc. We Are Handling Them for the Convenience of the Trade Herald-World Bookshop 407 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, 111. Motion Picture Patents My Specialty PATENTS William N. Moore Patent Attorney Loan and Trust Building Washington, D. C. The first important step is to learn whether you can obtain a patent. Please send sketch of your invention with $10, and I will examine the pertinent U. S. patents and inform you whether you are entitled to a patent, the cost and manner of procedure. Personal attention. Established 35 years. Copyright your play $5.00 Trade-Mark your goods or titles $30.00 NO MORE LOOSE CHAIRS ! Firmastone fastens loose theatre chairs to concrete floors permanently. Simple to use. Chemical cement — Sets in ten minutes. For further information, write us. GENERAL SEATING COMPANY 3109 Monlrose Avenue Chicago, 111. Theatre Equipment NEW AND USED Moving Picture Machines, Screens, Opera Chairs, Spotlights, Stereoptioons, Film Cabinets. Generator Sets, Reflecting Arc Tramps, Carbons. Tickets and Supplies. Projection Machines repaired and overhauled. Everything for the Theatre — Write for Catalog "H" MOVIE SUPPLY CO. R44 Wabash Ave.. Chicago Make WHOOPEE "THE BRAZEL WAY" Our lllUBtrated catalog full of fun-maklriK novelties that will put pep Into parties, dances, conventions, festivals and celebrations of any sort. You'll find just what you want amnnr these 1001 Items. Send for It todav. Brazel Novelty Mfg. Co. 4005 Apple St., Cin'M. 0. the latter may elect to consider the relation still existing and seek redress through the Compensation Act, or else to consider the relation terminated and seek redress under the common law by a suit for damages. The same rule of the law is applicable where a theatre owner is instrumental in one of his employes assaulting and injuring another employe. So held the higher court in the recent case of Boek v. Wong Hing (231 N. W. 233). In this case the testimony proved that an employer caused one of his employes to assault another. The latter sued for damages and the employer attempted to avoid liability by contending that the employe must seek compensation under the State Workmen's Compensation Laws. However, the court held the employer personally liable for damages, saying : "If the mere tool or agent is liable in an action for damages, the principal should be likewise. An employe excludes himself from the benefit of the act when his injuries in the employment are caused by his willful negligence. ... As between employer and employe willfully and intentionally inflicted bodily injuries should neither be regarded as accidental nor as giving occasion for the application of the Compensation Act for recovery or defense." Injured Person's Negligence It is true that a theatre owner, and all other property owners, are expected by the law to exercise care to safeguard patrons against injury. However, it is equally true that patrons are not entitled to damages for an injury where such injury does not result from negligence of the theatre owner, or if the injury is sustained while the patron is in a part of the premises not intended by the theatre owner to be used by the public. For instance, in Merrill v. Morris (231 N. W. 231), it was disclosed that a person, when leaving a building, stumbled over a post used to support a wire which surrounded a plot of grass. There was a lantern-shaped electric light just above the door. While somewhat enclosed by metal work, a reasonable amount of light came therefrom. The injured person sued the proprietor for damages. However, the court refused to hold the latter liable, saying: "It was defendant's (proprietor's) duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. It was not an insurer of safety. . . . The presence of the post and wire was not inherently dangerous. There was no concealed trap and no dangerous substance or dangerous machinery or appliance. The entrance walk leading from the door was safe and sufficient. The injured person was not supposed to go upon the strip of ground protected by the post and wire." Liability in Misrepresentation The law is well settled that the owner of theatre property is liable in damages new products ... in the motion picture theatre field are naturally everlastingly interesting to motion picture theatre people. Much time and money is therefore spent in efforts to announce them, to describe them, so that motion picture people may keep abreast of the times. Unbiased descriptions in the editorial columns of a publication form one example of the effort made to give this highly desirable information. But supplementing such reports are the advertisements. To give information concisely and accurately, is the precise purpose of advertisements, and the wise buyer looks to them, too, for the information he needs about new product. to a purchaser where the former misrepresents the value or other material facts regarding the property which he sells. Generally speaking, the amount of damages allowable from a sale induced by fraudulent representation is the difference between actual value of theatre property when purchased and the value as represented by the seller. For example, in Molnar v. Beriswell (171 N. E. 593), it was disclosed that a prospective purchaser was induced to enter into a contract to purchase property by fraudulent representations with respect to the income derived from the property. Later, when the purchaser discovered the fraud, and misrepresentations, he sued the seller to recover the difference between the actual value of the property and the amount which he had paid for it. In holding the purchaser entitled to a recovery, the court said: "The measure of damage in such cases is the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of purchase and sale and its value at that time, had the property been as it was represented to be." Theatre Sale Contract Contrary to the opinion of the majority of persons any person who fraudulently induces another to enter into a contract may be held liable in damages, and the other party may legally rescind the contract. An example of this point of the law is found in Irwin v. Burgan (28 S. W. [2d] 1017). The facts of this case are that a theatre owner named Burgan sold his theatre to a man named Irwin, accepting $5,000 down and balance in notes. Soon afterward the construction of a new theatre was started in the same block. Irwin sued Burgan for rescission of the contract and requested the court to order Burgan to cancel the notes and pay back the $5,000 cash down payment made when the contract was completed. The testimony was clear that Burgan represented to Irwin, in the negotiations for the sale and as an inducement thereto, that no competing theatre was in contemplation, so far as he knew. In view of this testimony, the court rendered a verdict in favor of Irwin.