Kinematograph year book (1944)

In the Courts. 151 and said that only 9,069 had been delivered, but the Court held there was no evidence of contract. Unregistered Charity.— A former manager of the Savoy, Totton, Hants, Maurice Hubert White, was fined £50 at Totton Police Court in Julv for unlawfully raising money for an unregistered war charity called "The Totton Prisoners of War Fund," by promoting an exhibition, and without approval in writing of the management committee or a person responsible for the management of the charity. Defendant, who pleaded guilty "through ignorance," was alleged to have arranged beauty contests at the kinema and collections were taken for the fund. He had promised to produce the books, but had not done so. Defendant said he had not kept any books, but handed in paying-in slips and cheque books showing money drawn. He also produced postcards from prisoners of war acknowledging receipt of cigarettes. Objected to Kinema Queues.— Because she objected to queues forming for the Regal, Douglas, in front of her property in Douglas, Mrs. Eunice Bowling withheld payment of the borough rates, amounting to £19 2s. and in April was sued for that amount in the local court. Mrs. Bowling contended that the Corporation had refused to enforce the Local Government Act, which prohibited standing and loitering on pavements. She objected to paying rates while the alleged nuisance continued. The Corporation declared that Mrs. Bowling's contention was no defence whatever toa suit for rates. She had a remedy in law. Eventually Mrs. Bowling paid the rates " under protest." Bogus Charity Appeal.— A sentence of three months with hard labour was imposed on Reginald Stanley Foster (43), fire-guard, at Liverpool, in April, for making an appeal for donations for an unregistered war charity — the National Defence Fire Guards Fund. It was stated that he had approached kinema managers on Merseyside, asking if collections could be taken in their kinemas for the Women's and Children's Evacuated Area Scheme — another bogus fund. FINANCE. SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. London & District Cinemas, Ltd.— In the Chancery Division, on July 19, Mr. Justice Simonds sanctioned a scheme of arrangement between the London and District Cinemas, Ltd., and its debenture holders, unsecured creditors and shareholders, and confirmed a proposal for reduction of capital. The petition had been adjourned for evidence as to the advantage the debenture holders were getting from the scheme. T. D. D. Divine, for the company, said it was in a position to pay off the arrears of interest on the debenture stock, and the scheme was designed to terminate the receivership and get rid of the debenture holders' action. The debenture stock holders would, for a period, have a controlling majority on the board of directors, and the sinking fund obligations were to be reduced. After hearing criticisms of the scheme on behalf of debenture holders, his Lordship said he had felt great difficulty in the case, but he had come to the conclusion that the scheme was one which business men, acting reasonably and honestly, had approved. The scheme had" been accompanied by a singularly naked circular, which contained nothing to guide or inform those who had to vote on it, but he could not say there were such sins of omission or of statement or over-statement which would justify him in refusing his sanction to the scheme. It had previously been explained that the capital of the company was £250,000 in 1,000,000 5s. shares. Of these 640,000 were issued and fully paid. The debenture stock authorised was £160,000, and it was secured by a trust deed dated December 23, 1936, which contained a specific charge on the company's freehold and leasehold kinemas and a floating charge on the undertaking. The stock was repayable on or before December, 1968, and there was a provision for a cumulative sinking fund of £2,400 a year. There had been default in payment of the sinking fund and of the interest on the stock. The amount of the debenture stock outstanding was £156,463. Of this £30,000 represented an investment of money received in respect of a kinema which bad been destroyed by fire. That £30,000 was to be cancelled as part of the scheme. As a result of a debenture holder's action a receiver was appointed, and he had reorganised the business. The company now owned seven kinemas, and as the company was now making a small profit it was to everyone's interest that there should not be a sale. The object of the scheme was to pay off the arrears of interest on the debenture stock, to cancel £30,000 of the stock, to discharge the sinking fund obligations for the years 1939 to 1942 and for 1943 and subsequent years to reduce the sinking fund payment to £1,620. The final date of redemption of. the stock was not affected. The company would take the necessary steps to procure the discharge of the receiver. There would be a composition of 10s. in the £ to the unsecured creditors. The capital was to be reduced by cancelling 3s. 9d. per share on the issued shares, reducing them to is. 3d. They were then to be consolidated into 5s. shares and the capital was to be increased to the original amount. WINDING-UP ORDER. Plaza (Southend), Ltd.— In the Chancery Division, on October 25, Mr. Justice Bennett made an order for the compulsory a inding up of Plaza (Southend), Ltd., on the petition of Plaza (Southchurch) Cinema, Ltd., of High Street, Southend-on-Sea. P. B. Morle, for the petitioners, said they were creditors for £680. The respondent company did not appear. At the meeting of creditors it was stated that the failure was attributed by one of the directors to the war, evacuation of the town, and also to the fact that the kinema got a bad name owing to faulty projection. BANKRUPTCIES. Large Sums Disappear.— The public . examination of Solomon Slesenger (47), lately carrying on business in Pink Lane, Newcastle, and who had given as the cause of failure losses over a kinema enterprise, was closed at Newcastle on May 5. The Registrar had commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the case, inasmuch as large sums of money had disappeared. The only answer that Slesenger had given was that some people had defaulted. The deficiency was £5,000, and the trustee stated there was prospect of a dividend, he had £1,200 and he was still making an attempt to get the partner in.