Kinematograph year book (1935)

182 The Kinematograph Year Book. In the Courts BREACH OF REGULATIONS B.O.T. Licence, — At Swadlincote Petty Sessions when C. H. Ward and T. Saddington, proprietors of the new Empire and Alexandra Cinemas, were summoned, on behalf of the Board of Trade, for exhibiting registered films to the public in a theatre without a licence from the Board of Trade, on December 21 last. A plea of "Not Guilty" was entered. Mr Cleaver, for the Board of Trade, said that the Alexandra Cinema was the building concerned. There was a company called the " SwadlincoteAlexandra Picture House Co., Ltd., but not the "Alexandra Picture House Co., Ltd., and how the name of Swadlincote came to be dropped was not known. Mr. Cleaver said the Board of Trade licence was issued for a year . He agreed that it was a technical matter. It was agreed that there was a licence in force until September 30 for the " Alexandra Picture House Company, Ltd." The form of the application led the Board to infer that the company had changed hands. It was argued for the defence that the prosecution could not succeed unless they proved that these two defendants were carrying on the business on the day in question. Eventually it was decided to withdraw the summons. Bona fide Guardian. — Bound over on a summons for having aided and abetted the Regent Circuit, Ltd., of London, to allow three persons under the age of 16 to see a film not passed for universal exhibition, Noel Fleming, licensee of the Grosvenor Kinema, Stanley Road, Liverpool, appealed at the Liverpool Quarter Sessions against the decision of the Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrate. The appeal was allowed. When the case originally came before the police court, it was stated that the ages of the boys who were admitted to see " Good-Bye Again " were 13 and 14. In respect of two boys, Fleming was fined 10s. each, and was discharged under the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of the third. Appeals were also successfully made against these convictions. Appellant's counsel took the line that an offence could not be said to haveobeen committed if the person who had the custdy of the children was believed to be their bona-fide guardian yet who turned out not to be such. If a person appeared to be over 16 and said he was, and appeared to have charge of children, and said he had, there would be no breach of the regulations if the children were admitted in charge of such a person. Otherwise the licensee would have to insist on legal proof in each case. There was no evidence of aiding and abetting. F. A. Sellars, for the Liverpool Licensing Justices, pointed out the regulation said persons under 16 years, and who appeared to be under 16 years must not be admitted to "A" film exhibitions. The Recorder (Mr. E. G. Hemmerde, K.C.) ruled that aiding and abetting must mean doing something actively. He could not uphold the conviction for aiding and abetting, be appeals were allowed with costs Uncensored Film. — Harold B. Millar, of the Princess Cinema, Brighton, was fined £5 by the Brighton Bench for exhibiting " Poil de Carrotte" without obtaining the consent of the Watch Committee. On behalf of the prosecution, it was stated that the British Board of Film Censors had asked the producers of the film to delete certain " shots," and particularly one scene, but they declined to do so. Defendant exhibited the film without applying for consent to do so, but had written to the Chief Constable to the effect that he did not consider it worth while to trouble the Watch Committee with every individual film. Defendant declared that he was glad that the Chief Constable had brought matters to a head as for a long time the position in Brighton had been extremely unsatisfactory. From time to time he had invited the Watch Committee to see certain films including " Her Child " and " The Miracle Woman," but they refused to do so. ' ' Are intelligent films to be shown in Brighton or are they not ? " asked defendant. He said that " Poil de Carrotte " had been recommended by the British Film Institute. The threatened hanging scene in the film was as nothing compared with the punishment to horses depicted in another film which had been passed by the British Board of Censors. Children at " A " Films — Prosecutions for showing " A " category films to unaccompanied children under 16 years of age were heard at Blackpool. The defendants were Frank R. Boydell, summoned in respect of the Plaza, and Walter Levy for aiding and abetting ; Aid. John Potter, M.P., in respect of the Waterloo, and Peter Howarth for aiding and abetting. Chief Constable H. E. Derham said that at the showing of " Heads We Go " at the Plaza, there were three boys and four girls under the age of 16 unaccompanied by parents or adults. At the Waterloo the same afternoon eight boys and four girls, unaccompanied were found during the screening of another "A" film, " A Study in Scarlet." It was pleaded that on that particular Saturday afternoon the weather was very wet and windy. The children and adults were queued up outside, and it was decided to get them in as quickly as possible. All four cases were dismissed on payment of costs. Ticket Irregularities.— At Marylebone Police Court on May 9, Mr. Bingley fined Adelaide Batten, of Goldney Road, Paddington, and Christina Roberts, of Cambridge Gardens, North Kensington, a total of £20 each on summonses for aiding and abetting their employers, Folkestone Playhouse, Ltd., of Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale, in issuing previously used admission tickets to the Prince of Wales, Harrow Road, and for issuing tickets out of their numerical order. Summonses against the company for issuing the tickets and for failing to furnish true returns of the number of admissions to the kinema for two weeks, were dismissed on payment of a total 01 £30 costs. If there ARE better pictures in 1935 they will be Radio, of course!