Kinematograph year book (1927)

The Kinematograph Year Book. In the Courts. TRADE DISPUTES. Film Transport Liability. — At Westminster County Court on June 10 the International Cinematograph Corporation, Ltd., sued the Hampshire Transport Company, Ltd., St. Michael's Chambers, High Street, Southampton. £21 16s. 4d. being claimed for a film entitled "The Master Man," which was lost in transit. Defendants conveyed films, including the one in question , to the Globe Films' depot in Shaftesbury Avenue, on the night of November 2. 1924. The film, which had been exhibited at the Regent, Shirley, Southampton, was missing early next morning when it was called for by the plaintiffs' agents, though it had been seen on the premises about half an hour before Mr. Done (for plaintiffs) contended that the. contract really was between Hunby and Walls, of the Southampton Kinema. and the transport company to make delivery to plaintiffs, and the Globe Company only came in as agents of the defendants. J. G. Trapnell (for defendants) argued that the defendants' responsibility ended with delivery at the Globe Film Depot at 81, Shaftesbury Avenue. Judge Hill Kelly held that the goods were deposited with the Globe Company as agents of the defendants, who then still had something to do to complete their contract, and that was to hand over the goods to the messenger of the renters, the plaintiffs. As payment was made by the defendants to employees of the Globe, the persons who took the gocds frcm the driver of defendant's lorry were acting as servants of the Transport Company. The gocds were lost during transit and while defendants were still responsible for them. Judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs. Renters Win. — In the King's Bench Division on June 7, before Mr. Justice Rowlatt, the New Amsterdam Credit Corporation of New York sued the Phillips Film Co., Ltd., of Motograph House, Upper St. Martin's Lane, London. In December, 1923, it was stated, an agreement was made between R. K. Bartlett, Inc., of New \ork, and the defendants, and assigned to the present plaintiffs, under which defendants were appointed sole concessionnaires of certain films, including " The Marriage Market, "for five years. Alleging breach of duty, plaintiffs said that defendants had failed to keep true and proper accounts of the sums spent in advertising the picture. Defendants denied any breach, and contended that they had never agreed to deliver any accounts other than particulars of bookings and contracts. Judgment was given for the defendants with costs, his lordship considering they had kept proper accounts. His interpretation of the agreement was that defendants were to retain 10 per cent, of the takings to be used in advertising upon the Whole adventure, A Burnt-out Generator.— S. A. Wright electricians, of New Cross, secured judgment Ior £5 5s and costs at Lambeth in June from I. and M. Levinski, of the Electric Theatre, Upper Norwood, for work and material supplied in repairing a generator. They had repaired a generator in June last year, and had given a guarantee for twelve months. In November they were called in again, and found it had been tampered with. Plaintiffs denied this, and put in a counterclaim for £4.0, representing loss of takings at the hall when the generator burned out. The Judge elicited the fact that there was no electrician working at the theatre, and said that no doubt this was the cause of the machine going wrong. He gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and dismissed the counterclaim. BREACH OF CONTRACT. The Phantom Sequel— In the matter of the withdrawal of a film, " Phantom of the Opera," upon which Greenfel's, Ltd. , sued the European Motion Picture Co. , Ltd. ,in Westminster County Court for damages for breach of contract, an application was made for an order to supply certain particulars. A. H. Richardson said that the proprietors felt they should bow to English public opinion, and refused to allow the film to be exhibited. The case was somewhat in the nature of a test case, for several other contracts turned upon the matter, and the decision in Westminster County Court might have an importance outside and beyond the considerations of the plaintiffs' case there. A contract had been made with plaintiffs to show the film six days in January last at the Hippodrome, Boston, Lincolnshire, and they claimed £77 net profit, which they estimated would have been made by the production of the film. The question would be whether the plaintiffs had suffered any damage. The film had never been shown in England at all. He submitted certain interrogatories with the view of ascertaining the earning power of the house when used for the production of films of the same character. P. Sandilands (for plaintiffs) contended that to require, as was required, for the twelvemonth till February 1, 1926, the titles of all films exhibited at the Hippodrome, and the receipts and expenses in connection therewith, was irrelevant and oppressive. Judge Kelly did not think it was irrelevant, though, as several films were shown each week, it might be oppressive. Mr . Sandilands said the defendants were entitled to see the books, which would give the receipts and expenses. Mr. Richardson said that plaintiffs would have had to keep a record because of the entertainment tax. The application was not unreasonable, and they wished to arrive at an amount which could be paid into court. The application was granted except as to some detailed classification of the receipts.