PICTURE SCREENINGS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 35, 4 November 1933, Page 21

PICTURE SCREENINGS

Film Society Convicted A TEST CASE Reserved judgment in what-was regarded as a test case was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when he convicted the Wellington Film Society (Inc.), and ordered it to pay the cost of the proceedings. Defendans were charged that, in a place to which a charge was made in respect of persons admitted thereto, they did exhibit a cinematograph film that had not been approved by the censor. The film for which the conviction was entered was “Road to Life. Another charge relating to “The Animal Kingdom” was withdrawn, it being shown before the society was incorporated. ~ In his judgment the magistrate said that the defendant society was an incorporated society formed as the result of a meeting convened in March last. The convener's memo, said: “Because of censorship or box office weakness, or both, films of great cinematograph worth and artistry are not screened in New Zealand, although in some cases they are actually brought here.” The society had 280 members, and there were 35 on the waiting list, the annual subscription being £l/1/-. Payment of the subscription gave to the member the right for two people (himself and a friend) to view each film screened. The member’s card was marked “Not transferable,” and/or it was written, "Admit .... end friend. Admission only by presentation of this card.” It was admitted that two films, The Road to Life” and “The Animal Kingdom,” in respect to which the charges were laid, had been rejected by the censor, and that the appeal against such rejection had been unsuccessful. In respect of the latter film, however, it appeared that this was screened by the promoters before the date of the actual incorporation of the society, though the expense of such screening was reimbursed from members’ subscriptions. The question was whether those films were exhibited in any place for admission to which a charge was made in respect of any person or persons. “If a member of the society were asked what he got in return for his subscription, or what he paid his money for, his answer would, I think,,” said the magistrate, “be ‘I get the right of admission for myself and my friend to view the pictures screened.’ Indeed, in the present case that appears to be the main and substantially the only privilege or right that he doos get. Without payment of the subscription he cannot gain admission to the place where the pictures are shown. “I think, therefore, that this place is one ‘for admission to which a charge is made,’ and that the exhibition of uncensored pictures there conies within the statute. The defendant must be convicted.” Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for the defendant and Mr. C. Evans-Scott prosecuted.