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.
THEATRE LEASES
247
lease of his theatre for the same term, injunction was likewise refused.60
In an action between the lessor and lessee of a theatre who had agreed to divide the profits of a play to be produced therein, evidence of the previous receipts of the theatre, of the popularity of the production in places where it had already been produced and the probable amount of the receipts was inadmissible.61
But in an action on the breach of a lease for a theatre, evidence of experts on the receipts of the theatre for the past year as a basis for computing the damages was held admissible.62
Where the issue involved is whether the performances given were in compliance with the contract, declarations of the patrons at the very moment they are leaving the theatre, of their reasons for so doing, are a part of the “res gestae” and admissible.63
Where a defendant was sued for services rendered and the question was whether he or his landlord was liable
60 Welty v. Jacobs (1898), 171 111. 624; 49 N. E. 723. Plaintiff, manager of “The Black Crook” entered into a contract with defendant for the use of the latter’s theatre. Subsequently defendant entered into another contract with a rival “The Black Crook” company for the use of his theatre for the same period. Plaintiff sued for injunction to restrain such use of the theatre. Held untenable.
61 Moss v. Tompkins (1893), 69 Hun (N. Y.), 288; 23 N. Y. Supp. 623; aff’d 144 N. Y. 659; 39 N. E. 858. In this connection, see Sections 21 and 49.
62 Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson (1913), 216 Mass. 30; 109 N. E. 926. See also.: Rosenwasser v. Amusement Enterprises (1914), 88 Misc. (N. Y.) 57; 150 N. Y. Supp. 561.
63 Charley v. Potthoff (1903), 118 Wis. 258; 95 N. W. 124.