We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
176
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
Section 65. — Inability of producer — when studio closed by authorities.
The inability of a manager to open his theatre does not relieve him from liability under his contract of employment.189 In like manner a producer is not freed from liability because he cannot make use of his studio.
But the manager frequently inserts a clause, intended to modify his liability in that respect, and if the clause is properly worded, he may succeed in doing so.190 But
ing — see People v. Ewer (1894), 141 N. Y. 129; 36 N. E. 4; People v. Stevens (1893), 70 Hun (N. Y.), 243.
189 Rice v. Miner (1915), 89 Misc. (N. Y.) 395; 151 N. Y. Supp. 983. “The defendant attempts to excuse his failure to furnish employment for the week of December 8th, 1913, on the ground that no license had been obtained for the theatre in which the performances were to be given, and it is claimed that this was an ‘interference or restraint of a legal authority. . . .’ That clause plainly contemplates active interference by public officials, and does not mean restraint by law, or include a case where defendant failed to obtain or cause to be procured a theatre license.”
Hardie v. Balmain (Eng.) (1902), 18 T. L. R. 539.
190 Halcroft v. West End Playhouse, Ltd. (Eng.) (1916), S. C. 182. Where defendant, owners of a theatre in the course of construction, had contracted with a performer to appear therein after its completion, and the building of the theatre was not completed, it was held that defendant was not liable, as the contract contained a clause that it was “subject to the said theatre being in the occupancy and possession of the management.”
Thring v. Lucas (Eng.) (1903), Strong on “Dramatic and Musical Law,” 3d Ed., p. 30. Where the theatre was closed by the authorities in order that certain repairs should be made. Held that the owner was not liable under a contract which contained a clause that “Engagement to be void if the performance is objected to by the public