Kinematograph year book (1927)

164 The Kinematogtaph Year Book. the agreement was running the defendants paid wages to the plaintiffs, and the latter paid the staff, although at no time were the defendants in a position to dismiss any of the employees in the developing room or engage new ones ; undoubtedly they were the servants of the plaintiffs. On November 26, the first shot was made and the film was subsequently developed by the servants of the plaintiffs but projection on the screen proved most unsatisfactory. There was a discussion as to who was to blame, and the plaintiffs put the blame on the camera men. At that time the defendants were satisfied in their minds that the fault lay with the equipment and personnel in the developing room for the film being unsatisfactory. On December 1, 14,000 or 15,000 feet of film were taken and the same happened on December 2 and 3. the same process was gone through again. On December 2, as the result of a d;scussion with all concerned in the work, it was decided by Dorothy Shurey, managing director of the defendant company, that the whole " take " should be sent to Gaumont, and that the parties should abide by the decision of that firm. On December 4, a message was received from Gaumont's, who reported thai the film was unsatisfactory owing to having been badly developed, and showed signs of hypo staining. There was a further meeting, and from that day the films were taken from his firm and sent to Gaumont, and proved satisfactory. As a result of these circumstances the defendants sustained considerable loss, overhead charges amounting to £1 32 per day, and the cost of extra negatives developing to £90 10s. After evidence had been submitted, His Lordship said he was satisfied there was nothing wrong with the film to indicate a breach of contract by plaintiffs. There must be judgment for the plaintiff on the counter-claim, and for the amount claimed and costs. Judgment was entered accordingly. Contractor's Responsibility. — An action for damages for alleged breach of contract arising out of the building of a kinema was brought at the Leeds Assizes by Mark Henry Morris, kinema proprietor, of Skipton, against Peter Fulcher, Horton Street Chambers, Halifax, reinforced concrete engineer and contractor. Plaintiff's case was that he had contracted with the defendant to construct a kinema with shops in Keighley Road, Skipton , upon certain drawings,for a sum of £3,500. Later, the West Riding architect raised objections to the working designs on the ground that allowance for wind pressure was not made in the side walls. The defendant replied to the architect that the proposed kinema was shielded by other buildings. The architect objected that this property belonged to other people, and might be removed or altered at any time, and insisted upon alterations of the designs which involved further cost in erection. The point was, who was to pay this extra cost ? Judgment was given for the plaintiff, who was awarded £750 as damages, with costs. Juliette Compton to Pay. — Before Mr. Justice Horridge and a special jury, in the King's Bench Division, on May 5 and following days, the hearing took place of an action brought by Britannia Films, Ltd. , of Surrey Street, London, against Miss Juliette H. Compton, film artiste, of Albemarle Street, London, claiming damages for alleged breach of contract in connection with the production of the film "Excelsior." Defendant denied the alleged breach, and counterclaimed damages for alleged breach of agreement, and also £480 for arrears of salary and £200 paid for costumes. It was declared by plaintiffs that at a critical moment in the production, which was being done in Switzerland, Miss Compton went away and broke her contract and the film could not be completed. The question was whether M;ss Compton absented herself in wilful disregard of her obligations under her contract, or whether, as she said, she was suffering from a temporary nervous breakdown. After the production of "Afraid of Love," an agreement was made that Miss Compton should "star" in films produced by the plaintiffs. She was to be paid a retaining fee of £1,000 a year, and was to have £60 a week when working in the making of a film. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and awarded them £6,375 damages, and, upon the direction of his Lordship, they found for the defendant on her counterclaim, awarding her £375 Judgment was entered accordingly, and a stay of execution on terms was granted. kinema and Stock Company. — At Runcorn County Court, on October 19, Dennis O'Flynn, known as Jack Foresque, of it\, Myrtle Street, Liverpool, sued the Cheshire Cinemas, Ltd., the Empress Theatre, Runcorn, for damages for breach of contract. O'Flynn was the proprietor of a stock company, and last April he made a contract to play at the Empress Theatre. The circumstances of the case were in respect to a claim for the proceeds of a benefit performance. The defendant, it was stated, had paid into court £29 16s. 4d. , and the only matter that had to b 3 decided was one of costs. Eventually it was agreed to accept judgment for £41 6s. nd. COPYRIGHT. Appeal Fails.— In the Court of Appeal, composed of Lords Justices Bankes, Scrutton and Atkin, the case of Edward Graham Falcon v. The Famous Players Film Co., Ltd., The Famous-Lasky Film Services, Ltd. . The Famous PlayersLasky Corporation, and Robert Chetham, was heard on June 8, 9, and 10, on the appeal of the defendants from a decision of Mr. Justice MiCardie. Mr. Maugham, K.C. ,for the appellants, said the action was brought against his clients to restrain an alleged infringement of a dramatic copyright, and for other incidental relief, and raised a number of questions of copyright law. Piaintiff claimed to be owner of the copyright of a dramatic work entitled, " Held by the Enemy," which related to the American Civil War, of the performing rights therein, and sole liberty of representation and performance of the work in Gt. Britain, Ireland and elsewhere, except in the U.S.A. The defendants other than Mr. Chetham were alleged to. have, without plaintiff's consent, wrongfully caused to be made a film of this work, and he imported and sold copies of it in Great Britain, and it had been exhibited at the Picturedrome, Bedford, owned by' Mr. Chetham. Mr. Justice McCardie, in his judgment, had held that the plaintiff's rights included the film production rights, and that all four defendants were liable. He granted an injunction against the whole of the defendants in the action, directed an account of the profits to be taken, delivering up of the infringing film, and an inquiry as to damages. Lord Justice Bankes, giving judgment, said there was ample evidence on which Mr. Justiee MeCardie could arrive at the conclusion that there had been infringement and for these reasons the appeal failed. The other Lord Justices concurred, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.