EVERYBODY'S THEATRE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 62, 13 March 1919, Page 7

EVERYBODY'S THEATRE.

OWNERS AND SUPPLIERS. AX INJUNCTION WANTED. A dispute about the management of Everybody's Picture Theatre, Queen Street, came before Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, when the New Zealand Picture Supplies, Ltd. (Mr. H. H. Ostler), applied for an interim injunction against the Gaiety Theatre, Ltd., proprietors of the theatre, and Arthur Ernest Coe (Dr. H. D. Bamford), restraining them from continuance in an alleged breach of an agreement under which the plaintiffs until recently managed the theatre and supplied it with films. Along- with the injunction the plaintiffs claimed £!)3 7/ special, and= £200 general damages, or in the alternative £3046 damages for loss of future profits under the agreement. The Gaiety Theatre, Ltd., were not represented, and it was stated that they would submit to the judgment of the Court.

The statement of claim set out that in April, 1915. when the theatre was opened, the plaintiff company entered into an agreement with the Gaiety Theatre, Ltd., whereby it undertook tn be responsible for the management of the theatre, and to supply films, for a term of five years, on a profit-sharing basis. In August, lfllS, the Gaiety Company sub-leased the theatre to Coe, who was one of its directors. Coe was made the company's attorney, and undertook to pay the rent, and to observe the standing agreement with the plaintiffs. As security for the performance of his covenants he deposited shares valued at £2,000 with the Gaiety Company. The plaintiff company continued to manage the theatre and supply films for a period of 28 weeks, until February 21 last, when Coe entered into possession, took the management into his own hands, and obtained a supply of films from elsewhere.

Mr. Ostler, in the course of legal 1 argument, read extracts from the IMSI agreement, which laid down most j elaborate conditions in regard to the grade of films supplied, and provided a sliding scale of shares in the profits, according to the proportion of "firstrun" film in the weekly programme. It further provided that in the event of, the theatre company being dissatisfied with the quality of the films, it should have the right to join in a ballot forfilms -with other Queen Street theatres supplied by the plaintiff company; also, that the latter should "use its best endeavours for the success of the theatre."' Coe, said counsel, had been made attorney in order that he might bring actions to obtain an interpretation of certain clauses in the agreement. These actions could not come on till about June next, and the Picture Supplies Co. wanted an injunction to enforce compliance with the agreement in the meantime, in order to save them serious loss of profits, which had hitherto averaged j £51 2/ a week. Coe had guaranteed to pay the theatre company £30 a week, and to pay the rent. It would not, he submitted, prejudice Coe to revert to the old state of affaire for three months, and it would save the plaintiffs the loss of a very considerable profit. Dr. Bamford, in the course of liis reply, said that Coe alleged mismanagement and neglect on the part of the plaintiffs, and asserted that the quality of films supplied was unsatisfactory, that lower grade films had been introduced when he asked for a ballot, and that other theatres had been favoured at the expense of "Everybody's." The I "best endeavours" clause was hard to enforce, and hie client felt that if he reverted to the old system there was grave danger of further neglect in the next three months. j His Honor reserved his decision. I