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.
202
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
of all pictures to be made with his participation; and that since no action could be maintained against Hart, none could be maintained against the defendant.239
Section 71. — Libel of actor.
Members of the theatrical profession will be permitted to maintain actions for libel where the criticisms of their performances are instigated through malice, or where the critic in his zeal has made statements which are untrue.
Where statements were made concerning ' a public singer that he falsely claimed to be the owner of certain songs, and that he procured the giving of applause, the court held the defendant guilty of a libel.240
239 Triangle Film Corp. v. Artcraft (1917), D. C. U. S., S. D., N. Y., July 31st. “If Hart could not be held for breach of contract, how can this defendant be held for inducing Hart to break his contract?”
For the first English case on this subject where the services of an actor were involved, see: Lumley v. Gye (Eng.) (1853), 2 E. & B. 216. See also: Allen v. Flood (Eng.), 67 L. J. Q. B. 112.
And for more recent miscellaneous cases in enticement, see: Rogers v. Evarts (1891), 17 N. Y. Supp. 264; Johnston Harvester Co. v. Meinhardt (18S0), 9 Abb. Cases, 393; DcJong v. Behrman (1911), 148 A. D. (N. Y.) 37; 131 N. Y. Supp. 10S3; Posner
Co. v. Jackson (1915), 166 A. D. (N. Y.) 920; 152 N. Y. Supp. 1105; Angle v. Chicago & St. Paid Ry. Co. (1893), 151 U. S. 1; 14 Sup. Ct. 240; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park & Sons (1911), 220 U. S. 373; 31 Sup. Ct. 376.
For some of the earlier enticement cases not involving the services of an actor see: Benton v. Pratt (1829), 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 386; Walker v. Crown (1871), 107 Mass. 555; Ashley v. Dixon (1872), 48 N. Y. 430; Boston Glass Mfg. v. Binney (1827), 4 Pick. (Mass.) 425; Newman v. Zachary (Eng.) (1646), Aleyn, 3; Hart v. Aldridge (Eng.) (1774), Cowp. 54; Gunter v. Astor (Eng.) (1819), 4 J. B. Moore, 12.
240 Dibdin v. Swan (Eng.)