Kinematograph year book (1937)

In the Courts. 207 nine other kinemas in this district and they " barred " each other. The magistrate said that he did not think the prosecution had made out their case, and dismissed the summons. Quota Oversight. — J. Wellesley Orr, the Manchester stipendiary magistrate, on September 30, imposed a fine of £50 on Associated British Cinemas, Ltd., of London, for not showing a sufficient quota of British films at the New Royal Kinema, Openshaw, Manchester, in the year ended September 30, 1935. Eight guineas costs were also allowed. It was stated that the " long " British films shown totalled 13.48 per cent., and the quota of " all " British films used was 11.52 per cent. On behalf of the defendant company, it was pleaded the mistake arose through the manager of the theatre leaving before he sent his quarterly returns to head office. The new manager did not know that the returns had not been made and the head office overlooked the fact, not finding out the error until the end of the year. £200 Quota Fine. — For failing to furnish the Board of Trade with the required particulars under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, in respect of the Empire Theatre, Heywood, Lanes, William Constantine, proprietor, and his son Kenneth William Constantine, manager, were each fined £100 and £5 5s. costs by Mr. Dummett at Bow Street. There were several convictions for similar offences against both defendants, it was stated, and the magistrate said it was one of the worst cases he had ever heard. The defendants he added, had paid no regard to the requirements of the law. BREACH OF CONTRACT. Actress's Contract. — The hearing was concluded on October 19 in the King's Bench Division before Mr. Justice Branson, after a hearing over several days, of an action by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., against Miss Bette Davis, for an injunction to restrain her from appearing in any stage or motion picture productions without their consent during the currency of her contract with them. It was suggested by the plaintiffs that Miss Davis had no legal ground for repudiating her contract and that she desired to do so merely because another producer, Mr. Toeplitz, had offered her a larger salary. Miss Davis said that the plaintiffs had broken their contract, that they wished her to play more than six hours a day, and that they either gave her too many films or too few, and that they required her to do unreasonable things. She also contended that the Court could not enforce a prohibitive clause to a contract of this description. Mr. Justice Branson, giving judgment, said no authority had been cited in support of the contention that the contract was unlawful, as being in restraint of trade. With regard to the question of whether the Courts would enforce specific performance of contracts containing negative covenants, his lordship said the conclusion to be drawn from the authorities was that where the provisions of the negative covenants would not amount to a decree of specific performance of the positive covenants, or a decree under which the defendant must either remain idle or perform the services, the Couit would enforce those covenants. The period of the injunction should give reasonable protection and no more, to the plaintiffs. If the injunction were in force during the continuance of the contract, or for three years, whichever was the shorter, tha 1 would substantially meet the case. Judgment was accordingly entered for Warner Brothers, with costs. Damages for Producers.— Frances Day was ordered to pay £1,530 damages to GaumontBritish, and costs of arbitration, in her contract dispute with the company. This was the decision following a special case which was stated by Walter Monckton as arbitrator before Mr. Justice Porter in the King's Bench Division. For Miss Day it was submitted that the contract was unenforceable because it imposed no obligation on Gaumont-British *to provide the artiste with any work at all and it contained what a judge had called "servile" incidents. F. Van den Berg, for G.-B., argued that no one could really say this contract was void for want of mutuality, and the arbitrator had found that it was not unreasonable. Nor could it be said to be void as against public policy. Mr. Justice Porter, giving judgment, said he could not regard the contract as void for want of mutuality. Nor could he say it was void as against public policy. He held it was a valid contract. They were entitled to put the lady "off salary" until the completion of " Jack of All Trades," in which she had failed to make ready to perform. It would be extending the law to hold that GaumontBritish were not entitled to claim damages as well. Script Writers' Claim.— Judgment for the plaintiffs was entered by Mr. Justice Goddard for £541 9s. damages and costs in the action brought against Criterion Film Productions, Ltd., by Akos Tolnay and James Bailiff Williams in respect of a contract by which plaintiffs were to write the scenario, synopsis, treatment and shooting script of " The Amateur Gentleman." Plaintiffs alleged that after they had done a considerable amount of work the defendants wrongfully repudiated the contract, with the result that the plaintiffs lost screen publicity and the balance of £350 which was to have been paid to them under the agreement. Defendants alleged breaches of contract by the plaintiffs in not delivering material according to time, and they counter claimed damages in respect of the additional expense to which they had been put. Plaintiffs denied that they had broken the contract. Mr. Justice Goddard found that defendants had undoubtedly committed a breach of the contract, in respect of which the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance of £350 less £8 ns. which the defendants paid for the services of a typist. Dealing with the question of damages for the loss of screen publicity, he observed : " I don't doubt that loss of publicity to an author is serious. One way in which the plaintiffs can expect employment is by getting their names before the public." The damage in this respect was assessed at £100 for each of the plaintiffs. Furnishing Contract.— An action brought by Buhnan Jupiter Screen Co., Ltd., Shaftesbury Avenue, W., in the King's Bench Division on January 27 against Associated British Cinemas , Ltd., Golden Square, and Theatre Equipment, Ltd., of Wardour Street, for alleged breach of