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

June 23, 1923. THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 12a : —— ——— | The Judge’s Tribute to Sir Oswald Stoll. iv. STOLL. ite Judge’s Tribute to Sir Oswald % was not mentioned in Court. bs A Settlement Announced. ° L When the time arrived for the resumption of this action on Friday the parties entered into a private conference, and shortly after noon a settlement was announced. were produced on the preceding day. 2 and naturally, that there must be some cable books, whereupon e cable books were produced. This cable book was found to be iu Bi a condition in which all the leaves were torn out. I need hardly b say it, was the cause of great anxiety to my clients and of great Ke is in court the representative of the Marconi Company, who te make these books, who is prepared to satisfy your Lordship te beyond all question that this book was never made until a year if after all these matters were concluded, so that although it was thought this might have been the book in which the cables i were, it now appears that it could not have been the book at J all. What apparently happened was this: The gentleman in P charge of this department, Mr. Anderson, extracted from the books the various cables which belong to different businesses, i and the cables in respect of each business seem to have been filed together. The cables in respect of this business have, as your Lordship now knows, only been discovered, and, I am sorry to say, been discovered piecemeal. Mr. Anderson, between the dates when these matters were started in 1919 and the present time, went abroad and died. There is no doubt what| ever that the various bundles which were put together, in point of fact were never properly kept as they should have been. That is why some of them were only discovered as late as yesterday." In conclusion, Mr. Hastings said he should like to say, particularly with regard to Mr. Hess, Mr. Godsol, and the other gentlemen who had been cross-examined, that any imputations against them were unreservedly and completely withdrawn. Mr. Tomlin, K.C., said they were very much obliged to His Lordship for the indulgence he had given, which had enabled them to come to a settlement. He proposed quite shortly to tell His Lordship what the terms were, but before he did so Mr. Hastings desired to say a word about the cable books which Mr. Patrick Hastings also expressed his indebtedness to His ie Lordship, and said the time given to the parties for a. conference had not been wasted. It was a difficult matter. Inasmuch as it was desirable there should be no doubt at all, the terms of settlement had been written down and they would bo read out. ie He should not have said anything at all if it had not been for the cables, of which there had been much discussion on the previous day. ‘‘I am sure,’’ he added, ‘‘ that all of us who practice in these courts Imow that the firm who are instructing ; us could not possibly be capable of giving any discovery other a than that which they believed to be complete and perfect, and B I am sure your Lordship would take a precisely similar view ; about Sir Oswald Stoll, A curious thing happened yesterday J in connection with this book (a cable book) which I have in a my hand. Your Lordship will remember a suggestion was made, distress to find what the explanation could be. I cannot tell your Lordship what the explanation is beyond this, that, there Mr. Tomlin then read the terms of settlement as follow : ‘All imputations of improper conduct or bad faith against plaintiffs or Mr. Hess, or any official of the plaintiff corporation, be absolutely and unreservedly withdrawn, and no imputation being made against the defendants, both counter-claims are dismissed with costs. Judgment for the plaintiffs for £18,500, with costs in both actions.” , Mr. Tomlin explained that there was another action and another counter-claim in which the same parties were concerned, and that the sum named was the total to be paid by defendants in respect of both actions. He also said the costs were to include certain special items which had been agreed between the parties. His Lordship said he was very glad that the parties had come to terms, and that the misunderstandings which existed had been cleared away. He accepted with pleasure the statement made by Mr. Hastings in regard to the points which had arisen upon the question of the production of documents. He had no doubt the able solicitors who had advised the defendants in this case had fulfilled their duties properly. ‘‘I ought also to say,” added His Lordship, ‘‘ that as Sir Oswald Stoll’s name has beem indirectly mentioned in this case, as far as I can see Sir Oswald Stoll is absolutely free from any suggestion that he has been guilty in any matter at all which might call for criticism. Therefore the case concludes under circumstances which I hope afford a basis of future commercial and personal friendship between those concerned.” IRISH CENSORSHIP BILL IN THE SENATE. . Recensoring at Lower Fees. the Irish Senate, where discussion only resulted in one important amendment. Seuator de Loughrey suggested that the Government might make some arrangement so that films already censored should not be subject to the expense of recensoring. The Minister for Local Government said that the films that had been passed by the Dublin Censor would he charged very much reduced fees, so that there would be no hardship. On the motion of Senator MacKean, Section 8 was amended by the addition of a clause providing that no person having stocks or shares or financial interest in any company having for its object the exhibition or production of moving pictures shall be eligible for membership of the Board of Censorship. The Minister for Local Government said that the proviso was one that nobody could object to. He suggested that the words ‘or production ’’ be inserted after ‘‘ exhibition.”’ The words were inserted and the amendment was agreed to. Senator MacKean then proposed that young people under 16 years of age shall not be admitted to any kinema unless in a body from the school under the supervision of their masters. The Earl of Wicklow formally seconded. Senator Yeats, the poet, contributed to the debate in opposition to the amendment, which was lost. Senator Barrington, in moving the insertion of the words, ‘or otherwise undesirable in the public interest,’’ after the words ‘‘publie morality’’ in Sub-Section 8, Section 7, said that it was suggested to him by a film he had seen in England. A good many films were devoted to propaganda, and films that he had seen in England would be fatal in Ireland. Mr. Blythe (Minister for Local Government) said that it would be better to give the censors no powers at all than powers so wide as those proposed by Senator Barrington. Senator Barrington withdrew his amendment, and the Bill was passed, T° Trish Censorship of Films Bill has now passed through