The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (May-Jun 1923)

f June 16, 1923. ==) V. e Big Law Case. STOLL. a draft for the amount to be paid was tendered. A clean copy was re-executed in England and reached America in January. Twelve of the films were released during the year in question, and three of the other six were not, in fact, completed in that year. Had they released these pictures, they would not have had any pictures with which to open the coming season. When Mr. Bernerd came to America in the late summer of 1919 to negotiate a contract for the coming season he pointed out the difficult position in which his company had been placed by the non-release of the six films, and asked the witness if he did not think there was a chance of the Goldwyn Company letting them have the six pictures in the then season. Witness said he thought not, and expressed his opinion that it was a matter for Mr, 'Godsol and Mr. Goldwyn, who were then in California. Upon their return he introduced Mr. Bernerd to them and, as a result, a new contract was drawn up for the 1919-1920 season, which included the six films which had not been released the previous season. Financial Guarantee. Mr. Bernerd produced a cablegram from Sir Oswald Stoll, stating : ‘‘ Cable received to-day involves payments to Goldwyn of £220,000 and, in addition, £58,800 is required for prints which implies that Goldwyns’ 60 per cent. will amount to £278,800, involving estimated takings of £464,664 or £9,500 for each of 49 pictures, whereas we have no figures to justify an estimate of more than £296,500. The deal, therefore, seems impossible as a business proposition, even assuming no risk of Goldwyn not being in a position to carry out their contract when the time arrives. Our proposal is to pay to Goldwyns’ bankers or agents in London £70,000 deposit on which 5 per cent. interest payable to us secured by fourteen original negatives of Frederick, Rex Beach, Farrar calibre, also to pay £73,500 in weekly instalments against release by us of one picture per week commencing September next, amount of instalments being £1,500. Terms of deal : Goldwyn sixty, ourselves, forty per cent. of gross receipts of entire output. Prints duty and freightage to be deducted from Goldwyns’ percentage. We think we are entitled to compensation for delay in giving notice of can cellation of six star series and for duping: Witness said Mr. Bernerd told him Mr. Godsol was asking a price which he thought his company could not pay, and asked witness if he could not help him in bringing negotiations to a conclusion. Witness said he would take the cable and see whiat he could do. The result was ultimate accord, which was embodied in a fresh agreement. In reply to His Lordship, Mr. Tomlin said this evidence dealt with the point of good faith, as defendants said plaintiffs were trying to force the same prints upon them at a higher rate. THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PIGTURE NEWS. y Witness said the fresh agreement. was not completed owing to Sir Oswald Stoll's refusal. Up to this time the question of bad faith had not been raised. The first suggestion of this was contained in an interview given by Mr, Bernerd to the English lay Press. The Boom im Prices. Cross-examination by Sir John Simon elicited from witness the statements that there was an increased demand for pictures during the 1919-20 season and that higher prices were obtained. Witness believed higher prices were obtained for the six pictures than if they had been released in the previous year. He would not admit that they urged defendants to make new contracts with their exhibitors at higher prices. Witness agreed that his reply to the interview given by Mr. Bernerd was printed, but did not admit that the meaning of his reply was that the Goldwyn Corporation considered that more money should be got out of the English exhibitors for some of the eighteen films. He said the Goldwyn Corporation considered that six films should not be delivered to the Stoll Company at the price the Stoll Company had contracted to pay had the films been released in the previous season. In further cross-examination witness admitted that some statements in his reply to Mr. Bernerd’s interview were not quite accurate, but they represented his impression of the facts at the time the reply was written. Influenza did not occur anywhere in the explanation. It was decided not to say too much in the statement and not to disclose their whole case. Mr. Justice McCardie resumed the hearing of this action. in the King’s Bench Division on Monday. Further cross-examined by Sir John Simon, Mr. Hess said at the time the alterations were suggested in the agreement only two of the eighteen films had been released, and the effect of the proposed alterations would have been to leave it entirely to the plaintiff company whether or not any further films were released. Notwithstanding that, defendants were to pay 22,000 dollars in respect of the last three films, and the Stoll Company could not get that money back. Sir John Simon’s Questions. Sir John Simon: If your account is right that Mr. George King and Mr. Fulman said they did not think there would li.ve been any serious objection to these alterations, don’t you think they must have been uncommon fools?—I don’t think so. Witness said he was satisfied he was, approximately, right as to the dates. His Lordship: Did these gentlemen understand plainly you had the option to deliver or not the eighteen?—Yes, I think they understood it clearly. What did they say with regard to the financial provision in the contract?—-They did not say anything. Do you mean to say they were to pay 22,000 dollars for the last three unconditionally, and. lose it if you did not release the lust three?—No, it would have been applied against the last three we did release. We released twelve. His Lordship: If you had an absolute option I don’t kiow why you did not say so in the contract.--The difficulty was that the contract was prepared by the other side, and we tried to do as little tinkering as possible, so long as the views of my company were met. Replying to another question, witness said that he believed (according to New York law) if his company had not released any more films defendants could have recovered the dollars remaining, after paying for the films actually released, out of the 22,000 dollars.