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

12 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 4 S exclusively announced in our last issue, the Goldwyn-Stoll A case terminated with dramatic suddenness on Friday morning, when the two contesting parties reached & settlement which was‘ agreed to by Mr. Justice McCardie. When the court assembled on Friday it was noticeable by the absence of the Judge and the principals of the case that « settlement was in the air, and it was no surprise when Mr. Tomlin, K.C., rose at 12-80 and announced that his clients had agreed to a settlement with the Stoll Company so that therc would be an end to the dispute. The actual terms of the settlement were in substance given in our last issue, but owing to the fact that it was' not reached until late on Friday morning, there was not time to print the remarks of Mr. Justice McCardie, As thesa contained a very handsome tribute to Sir Oswald Stoll, we give the judgment in full. There is one point that was not mentioned in court, which the plaintiffs very generously conceded and which, we understand, is exceedingly satisfactory to the Stoll Company. The Goldwyn claim was for £20,000, and when Stoll’s agreed to a judgnient for £18,500, it was agreed also that an action entered in America against Stoll’s by Messrs. Godsol, Gillette and Frohman, which was holding up the exhibition of the Stoli Sherlock Holmes Pictures, should be withdrawn and that the Stoll Company should have the free use to the title Sherlock Holmes. It will be remembered that this action has been pending for some months in the States, and the sale of these Sherlock’ Holmes films which Stoll’s had made was seriously retarded, and it has been impossible to proceed pending the trial of the action, Now that Mr. F. J. Godsol has very handsomely met Stoll’s by agreeing to withdraw his claim, the way is left open for Stoll’s to proceed with these pictures, and as the sum involved runs into many thousands of pounds, it undoubtedly is a very real asset to them. We append below the later stages of the hearing, together with the full report of the settlement. Stoll’s Right to the Six Films. Mr. Justice McCardie resumed the hearing of this action in the King’s Bench Division on Thursday. Mr. Bernerd was cross-examined by Mr. Tomlin: When you noticed the alterations which plaintiffs had made in the agreement, did you still believe you had full right to the 18 pictures ?— Yes, if they were produced. You knew it was not certain?—It was as certain as anything in this world can be. Mr. Tomlin: One thing is certain, and that is, you will not answer a question ‘* Yes "’ or ‘‘ No.’’ (Laughter.) Witness said he hoped to arrange with Goldwyn for the next season’s production and for joint productions with him for the future. He (witness) knew before the contract was entered into that the influenza epidemic had interfered with production, but he had no doubt that he would get the 18 pictures. He did not suddenly make up his mind to go to America because he had a doubt whether he was going to get the 18 films. The reason he cabled to say he was coming was because there had been correspondence about a proposition for joint production with Goldwyn, and witness was very anxious to meet him. Some letters were produced regarding this proposition for a joint scheme. When did you first come to the conclusion you were being treated in bad faith by Goldwyn?—At the interview at which Mr. Goldwyn and I had a rather heated conversation on October 9 or 10. I don’t think they thought it was anything but an American method of doing business. Was it on your suggestion that certain questions were put in this action attacking the character of Mr. Godsol, for which, fortunately, he was prepared with a full and complete answer ?—No, I had heard a rumour about certain things, and I told my solicitor, and it was left in his hands. I did not know the questions were going to be put. June 23. 1923, GOLDWYY Full Report of the Settlement—1. Stoll—A nd an A greementth\ Witness denied that he told Mr. Blumenthal that Mr. Godsol was going to be torn to pieces by Sir John Simon. 4 Is it not the true position that you never suggested there was an obligation on them to deliver the six pictures, but that yo said they were morally bound to deliver them ?—No. His Lordship: Do you say Sir Oswald Stoll thought he hai an absolute right to the 18?—Yes. Why did he complain in the cablegram not of cancellation, but of the delay?—I don’t know what was in his mind. He says he is entitled to compensation for delay in giving notice?—He probably thought that they could not deliver some of the pictures. He might have had the idea that some of the pictures had not been produced and would not be produced. A Question of Cables. Mr. Tomlin pointed out to witness that in a cable advising acceptance of the new contract there was not a word about the six pictures?—Witness said some of these cables were sett from Goldwyn’s office. In some cases they were dictated in the presence of Mr. Hess, who said: ‘‘ You will have to get your Board’s decision quick.”’ Is that the reason for not putting in anything about the six?— No, I was not discussing the six at this time, but discussing the whole output. His Lordship suggested that the cable book should have been put in, and Mr. Hastings said it had been sent for. Mr. Tomlin then put to witness a cable from Mr. Michie in London to Mr. Taylor, who was over in New York with witnes. The cable referring to the suggested terms of the new contrat said they were impossible, and added: ‘t Gamble for us. We must continue production English films. new contract delayed, Goldwyn's will climb down."' Witnes said he did not remember whether there was any reply to thst cable. He was rather annoyed about it because it was rather lowering his prestige, but Taylor said: ‘‘ It’s quite all right. It’s from our very good friend in London and is merely to show the proposition is not regarded as of the best." Perhaps if decision On the resumption after luncheon cable books were produced, and in respect of one his lordship said the leaves had beeu torn out, and asked witness if he could give an explanation of that, Witness said that perhaps it had never been used. His Lordship: Some of the torn pieces have marks on them as if it had been used?—Yes, I can see the top three. I suggest they have probably been torn out and used. The Judge: First you say it had not been used. Now it is obvious it has been used. Witness: It is not from my office. I understand it is from the Coliseum. The leaves may have been torn out to be used in this case. His Lordship: At present I do not like this aspect of tbe case. Mr. Hastings said it was a matter that would be investigated, but at the moment he had no explanation to offer. The hearing was adjourned.