Kinematograph year book (1927)

166 The Kinematograph Year Book. " A Shabby Defence." — Sued in Westminster County Court on October 12, by the Gaumonl Company, Ltd., Denman Street, W. , for £6, hire of two films, the Llanbradach Workmen's Hall and Institute, of Llanbradach, Glamorgan, contested the claim on several grounds, the chief being that they were sued as a firm , whereas they ware a non-registered and non-incorporated members' club. It was agreed to join the present secretary, Albert Hughes, as co-defendant. Judge Tobin gave judgment for plaintiff for £6 against Albert Hughes. He was not going to give any costs to the institute and he had difficulty in givi ig costs against Mr. Hughes before the time he was joined. He thought this extremely shabby of the committee to have raised this defence of their non-liability. Judg riant was entered against Albert Hughes from the moment that he was joined as defendant, and the Judge directed the Registrar to include counsel's fees, etc., if he could see his way to do it. The Amateur Exhibitor. — A children's entertainment in an old club-room on licensed premises led to a prosecution at the Portsmouth Police Court on November 9, when Lawrence George Threadingham , licensee of the Highland Beerhouse, Eastney, was summoned for contravening Section 1 of the Kinematograph Act, 1909. Inspector Stanley stated that he found 48 children watching a kinematograph performance for which defendant stated he charged them a penny each and gave them sweets and biscuits, so that he was really out of pocket. The films being used were inflammable. As soon as defendant understood he was infringing the law he disposed of the machine. He said a 200-candle power electric light had been fitted to the machine on the advice of a kinematograph electrician, and he was assured that this would be perfectly safe. The Bench recorded a conviction, but dismissed the information on payment of costs. At the same time the Chairman expressed the hope that the seriousness of the offence would be realised and that it would not be repeated by other licensees. Employees' Registration. — At Church (Lancashire) Police Court, April 1, Edward Cook, of Oswaldtwistle, was summoned for a breach of the Theatrical Employers' Registration Act of 192.5, by carrying on business as a theatrical employer without being reg'stered. On March 4 officers visited the Star Kinema Hall, Clayton e-Moors, and saw a troupe performing under the name of "The Five Venetian Girls," Defendant, asked if he was registered, said he had forwarded a remittance of £2 to the County Council offices on March 2, but the official in charge of registration said nothing had been received. The following day an application was received from the defendant. Defendant said he understood there was no need to take out a licence unless he was paying wages. The girls were not getting wages, as they were performing a month on trial, getting food, rooms and travelling expenses. The Magistrate's Clerk said defendant was an employer from the moment he engaged the troupe. A fine of 20s. was inflicted, and ios.expenseswere allowed for a witness. The Chairman said kinema proprietors were running a risk if they did not ascertain whether the manager of a troupe was properly registered. Managers' Rights. — In dismissing an action for slander, Lord Constable, at the Court of Session, Edinburgh, gave an important ruling upon the rights of kinema managers in the conduct of their halls. The plaintiff was a patron of the Arcadia Picture House, Bridgeton. Glasgow, and he sued the company owning the hall for £500 damages for slander. In dismissing the case, with costs, the judge reviewed the circumstances. The plaintiff was in the hall and a girl of about 12 was shown to a seat next to him. A female attendant shortly removed her to another seat, and the plaintiff followed her and spoke to her. She was moved again and plaintiff followed again. A male attendant then asked him to leave the hall. In the lobby he was told, in reply to his demand for an explanation, that he was interfering with the little girl. Plaintiff then fetched two policemen, who asked the attendant for the reasons for ejectment. After a visit to the police station he returned to the kinema, but was refused admittance by the undermanager, who said to him, " You are a suspicious character." In view of all the circumstances. Lord Constable said they disclosed a clear case of privilege. It was the right of the managers of such places to supervise the behaviour of persons resorting there. He held that the plaintiff's averments were irrelevant and insufficient to support the summons, and his; actions, however innocent, had given cause for challenging his conduct. Torn Garments. — In the Bow County Court S. Weitzer,of 53, Waverley Road, Walthamstow, E., a newsagent, sued Mr. Guyster, the proprietor of the Crown Picture Palace, Wood Street, Walthamstow, to recover £2 damage done to his trousers when he was leaving the kinema after a performance on Monday evening. Plaintiff tore his trousers on a loose screw at the back of the seats in front of him. The tear was six inches long, and so the trousers became useless. The judge allowed 30s. and costs. Chaplin Film Injunction.— In the Chancery Division on June 23, before Mr. Justice Romer, Bernard Smith (trading as the Standard Film Agency), sued by the Export and Import Film Co., Ltd., consented to a perpetual injunction restraining them from selling, letting for hire, or offering for sale certain Charles Chaplin films. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the defendant was prepared to treat the motion as the trial of the action and pay the costs. There would be no enquiry as to damages, but the defendant undertook to file an affidavit that he had no copies of the film nor had he hired or sold any. Workmen's Club Sued.— In November Lords Justices Bankes and Scrutton allowed an appeal by Ideal Films, Ltd. .from an order of Mr . Justice Horridge, who decided that the trustees of the Llanbradach Workmen's Hall and Institute were not properly parties to an action by Ideal Films for £234 odd claimed for the hire of filmsshown atthe Institute under contracts with the company. The action was pending, and the matter came up only that it might be decided whether Ideal Films might sue the trustees or whether they would have to sue each individud member for his proportion of the hire. Their Lordships held that there was no reason why the trustees should not be parties to the action, and allowed the appeal.