CRITICAL JUDGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 74, 29 March 1933, Page 11

CRITICAL JUDGES.

MINISTER'S POWERS.

REFUSAL OF LICENSE.

PROPOSES NEW THEATRE.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Tuesday.

The Court of Appeal to-day considered an application brought by Robert James Kerridge, of Gisborne, for a writ of mandamus ordering Roy Girling-Butcher, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1028, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridge on December 2 last for a license for the projection of cinematograph films in respect of certain premises to be erected in Hinemoa Street, Rotorua.

In the statement of claim Kerridge alleged that following his application his solicitors received a letter from Mr. Girling-Butcher stating that he had received an instruction from the Minister of Industries and Commerce, made purquant to the Board of Trade (Cinematograph Film) Regulations, 1932, directing him not to issue the license asked for and that he proposed to act under that direction.

These proceedings came before Mr. Justice Ostler on March 8 and were removed by him into the Court of Appeal. Mr. Spratt, with him Mr. Hurley, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Fair, Solicitor-General, for the defendant.

Exhibitors' Rights,

Mr. Spratt said that defendant had absolutely refused to consider Kerridge's application, because of an instruction from the Minister purported to be made under the Board of Trade Regulations, 1932. Plaintiff claimed that those regulations were ultra vires in that they were made without statutory authority. They conferred on the Minister powers far wider than those which the Board of Trade Act, 1919, enabled to be conferred. They were so wide as to confer upon the Minister the right to say who should be admitted to the exhibiting industry or the right to say how many or how few picture theatres there might be in each particular town.

Section 32 of the Cinematograph Films Act gave to any applicant the absolute right to an exhibitors' license, continued counsel. The regulations in so far as they purported to take away that right were repugnant to the statute and were therefore bad. The effect of the regulations if they were to stand was alarming. They created in the hands of the Minister power to rule the industry as he thought fit, to create a monopoly in favour of any particular theatre, and no exhibitor, however humble, could exhibit if he chose to say, "Thou shalt not." The provisions of the regulations and provisions of the Cinematograph Act could not stand together, and therefore the former must go. Lastly, Mr. Spratt submitted that if the regulations could be sustained, then Parliament had abdicated its right and I duty to legislate in respect of those matters with which the regulations | dealt.

To this last point, Mr. Justice MacGregor replied: "I do not think that is very astonishing to us in New Zealand."

Case For Defendant.

Opening the case for the defendant, the Solicitor-General submitted that the whole question depended solely on the construction of section 26 of the Board of Trade Act. That section, he contended, was wide enough to empower the Governor-General-in-Council to issue the regulations now in dispute. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers: According to your view, this section gives the Governor-General-in-Council power to prevent all grocers except one operating in Lambton Quay. Mr. Justice Reed: Or to say that the Supreme Court shall not until a further order from the Minister admit any more solicitors to the Bar.

Mr. Justice Ostler said the regulations seemed to him to take away most of the freedom that he thought citizens in this country possessed. It appeared to give the Minister power to say that any young man who qualified himself by examination should not enter into the profession of his choice. The Chief Justice then asked the Soli-citor-General whether the Court should not exert all its ingenuity to avoid all these alleged consequences. The Solicitor-General submitted that such was not the position, but in any event, the words of the section were plain, and the Court was bound to enforce them, no matter how unpleasant it might be. Mr. Justice MacGregor suggested that a good short title for the Board of Trade Act would be "More Government in Business."

Mr. Justice Reed asked where the legislation came from. On the Solicitor-General stating he did not know the Judge said, "Not Russia, I suppose 't" Mr. Spratt: No, made in New Zealand.

Necessity for Regulations. Dealing with tho necessity for the regulations, the Solicitor-General said that prior to April, 1932, certain of the larger and more important firms had entered into combination, pooling their profits in respect of certain theatres, and generally co-operating with one another. Tliis combination controlled the largest and most popular theatres in the chief towns, and consequently was able to obtain contracts for the use of the most important pictures from the renters. It had been alleged that in certain towns members of the combination had approached independent exhibitors and threatened to erect competitive theatres unless such owners were agreeable to lease their theatres to the combination and agree that they should be entitled to half the net profits. The combination, by its business and influence with renters, would enable any of its members to obtain a monopoly of early bookings in any town, and would destroy the business of existing companies, said Mr. Fair. It was at this type of competition that the regulations were aimed. The Chief Justice remarked that the regulations could be devised to meet unfair competition if there were unfair competition, but that was a far different thing from the regulations in question. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.

During the "Feast of Dolls," which falls in the first week of March, the girls of Japan hold high festival. The family treasures are exhibited, particularly the dolls of mothers and grandmothers. Amongst the Japanese noble families the dolls are not only intrinsically valuable, but they are treasured as heirlooms for centuries. In every Japanese household, however, the dolls are held in high esteem, and would be the- last possessions their owners would yield up.