Kinematograph year book (1929)

In the Courts. 199 ADVERTISING. A Silk Stocking, Stunt.— Frank Bertram Prior, manager of the Hippodrome Theatre, Crown Hill, Croydon, and Robert Alfred Driscoi;, managing director of Kennards, Ltd., North End, Croydon, were summoned at Croydon for selling chances in a lottery. Charles E. Palmer, managing director of the Pretty Polly Hosiery Mills, Ltd., Leek, Staffordshire, was also summoned for aiding and abetting. For the police it was explained that when the film "Silk Stockings" was exhibited at the Hippodrome, the hosiery firm decided to utilise the occasion to give away fifty pairs of silk stockings. A scheme was advertised to which the police objected, and it was then changed to the one now complained about, which was a distribution of silk stockings by spot light. At the distribution some people got the actual stockings, and others were given a ticket which could be exchanged for stockings at Kennards. For trie def nee it was sfated thii after the police warning it was decided to withdraw the number scheme and to award the stockings as spot light prizes. Mr. Knight, for the pro<=ecition,said he could not agree that the original scheme was legal. The summonses were dismissed on payment of ten guineas costs. Fly-Posting Action. — An action of considerable interest to kinema proprietors and managers who use fly-posters was heard in Plymouth County Court when David Jordan claimed 2S. 6d. from the Plymouth Hippodrome Co., for alleged damage to his property. Jordan stated he was tenant of the premises in the Octogan, Plymouth , and the Hippodrome Company caused some flyposters to be posted upon the windows bearing the words, " This way to the Hippodrome." The premises were not occupied at the time, but were being painted. Counsel for the Hippodrome argued that as Jordan had not proved that the Hippodrome Company were responsible for placing the bills upon the premises, he had no case to answer, and the Judge, taking the same view, gave judgment for the Hippodrome Company, with costs. BREACH OF CONTRACT Warner v. Gaumonl.— In the Chancery Division, Mr. Justice Romer had before him an action by Warner Brothers (Inc.), of New York Citv, against the Gaumont Co., Ltd., of Sherwood Street, Piccadilly, W., claiming an account of what was alleged to be due to them under two contracts of 1924 and 1925, which provided that the defendant company should take and distribute in the United Kingdom a certain number of films under specified conditions. Sir. Herbert Cunliffe, K.C., for the plaintiff company, said the trouble arose under two agreements dated May 21, 1924, and May 21, 1925. By the first agreement the defendant company were to take 22 films, and by the second, 26, afterwards increased to 40. In May, 1924, plaintiffs made arrangements with the defendants for distributing their films, and after certain expenses were paid, 45 per cent, of the receipts were to go to the plaintiff company and 5=) per cent, to the defendant company. The latter were to make monthlv payments of the balances due, but they were to be entitled to retain the share due to the plaintiff company against advances made under the contract. The trouble arose out of this, because the plaintiff company said that the defendant company, under the second contract, held up money due to them under the first contract to reimburse themselves for advances under the second contract, a thing which he said they were not entitled to do. In the 1924 contract there was an option that the defendant company could take the plaintiff company's productions for subsequent years, but the case was only concerned with the following year. It was admitted that under the first contract the 22 films were delivered in the proper time and that the 40 were delivered under the second contract. What the plaintiff company said was that the defendant company had not delivered proper accounts under the agreements, had not delivered a separate account for each picture, that they (plaintiff company) had not had the details of contracts to which they were entitled nor, information as to lettings nor access to the defendant company's books, to which they were also entitled. The hearing was adjourned until the following day, when the action was settled after negotiations which lasted about three hours. At the conclusion of the negotiations, Sir Herbert Cunliffe, K.C.,for the plaintiff company, said the action had been settled on ttrms signed by counsel. Certain charges bad been completely and unreservedly withdrawn, and the plaintiff company wished him to say that they never intended to make any imputation against the personal honour and integrity of Colonel Bromhead or Reginald Bromhead or their staff, and that if any such impression had been created his clients wished to express their very great regret. It is understood that the terms of settlement involve the payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of £16,000 and the costs of the action, the £1 7,000 being satisfied out of money in the defendants' hands. The terms also provided for resumption of trade relations between the plaintiffs and the latter allied companies. A Broken Contract. — In the Lambeth County Court, on June 12, before Judge Hargreaves, Ada Blyton, professionally known as Ada Rene , sued Supershows, Ltd., of 92, Wandsworth Road, S.W., to recover £4 10s. under an agreement dated March 7. The defence was that she did not put in an appearance at a rehearsal, and that the plaintiff appeared at a theatre in the locality under the name of Ada Vernon, whereas it was a wellknown custom in the profession, and also under the contract, that she should not have appeared within one mile radius, or for twelve weeks prior to her appearance, The plaintiff said she 'phoned the defendants to ask the exact time of the rehearsal, and she was told she had broken her engagement as she had appeared at the Clock Tower Cinema. She was to have given nine performances, three a day, and receive £4 10s. Judge Hargreaves said that in view of the evidence that had been given for the defence, he must find that the plaintiff had broken the contract, and he must give judgment for the defendants, and costs.