Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FILM CONTRACT DISPUTE

THEATRE PROPRIETOR SUED

<Oy Telegraph—Presa Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 8. Ri.K.O. Radio Pictures (Australasia) Ltd., film distributor, claimed in the Magistrate’s Court to-day £76 7is /« from Q. E. Gray, Auckland, formerly proprietor of the Manurewa picture, theatre, as a result of alleged breacn of contract. The claim stated that under an agreement of September 30, 1932, Gray undertook ,to hire and exhibit 40 films. He exhibited only five and disposed of his interests in the theatre, refusing, it is alleged, to carry out the remainder of the contract. The amount of rental due for the films was £65, plus 50 per cent, of the gross proceeds, over £ls for each exhibition. A further £ll 7s 7d was due in respect to films previously supplied. It was stated for the plaintiffs that the new proprietor of the theatre made arrangements for films elsewhere then from Radio Piotriros. Il> wais also stated that the question of quality of the films was never raised till the case was brought to Court. It would be shown that the quality was well up to standard and that the drop in receipts was only in accordance with the general decline which had been evident m tlie film business. Walter A. Kritdh gave evidence for the plaintiff on the lines indicated, by counsel. He denied that he told Gray there would he 70 pictures from which 40 could bo selected. He had said 52 films would he available. Had Gray continued under his contract he would have had 63 films to choose from. Jn concluding the case for the plam--1 tiff counsel said it arose out of the practice among film exhibitors throughout the Dominion of blaming the producers for the decline in the motion picture business. Mr. Goldwater said when the contract was entered into there was a false representation of fact, recklessly although not of necessity deliberately false, if the pictures did not draiw houses the picture proprietors would be ruined. . . The magistrate reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAWST19331110.2.4

Bibliographic details

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 10 November 1933, Page 2

Word Count
333

FILM CONTRACT DISPUTE Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 10 November 1933, Page 2

FILM CONTRACT DISPUTE Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 10 November 1933, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert