SOUND FILM IN COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 221, 19 August 1931, Page 10

SOUND FILM IN COURT.

NOISES OF DAIRY. It has remained for Australia to introduce a sound film into a Court of Law as a “witness.” This will be done when a resident of Caulfield, New South Wales, secures the hearing of his action for an injunction against a next door neighbour who owns and operates a dairy. The plaintiff is claiming £IOOO damages and an injunction against the continuation of the noises which he complains of—the banging of cans, talking, whistling, singing, and the noisy running of the engines, which interferes with his The case has already been mentioned before the Court, and a temporary injunction granted against singing and whistling; but the main argument centred around the admissibility of a sound film as evidence. The Chief Justice at once said that he saw no reason against it, provided certain precautions were taken. It would seem, therefore, that science, always at war with conservatism, has won the first round of the battle for the introduction of the mechanical witness into a legal action. , . Many affidavits have been hied in the action by the parties in the case, but the allegations on the one side have been met with straight-out denials on the other. The plaintiff thereupon hit on the idea of obtaining independent testimony in the form of a sound production of the noises, which, he says, disturb his sleep. A sound film company were thereupon commissioned to “photograph” the noises. The microplioiiG was placed <i few inclies froni the window sill of the room in which the plaintiff sleeps, and for the purposes of comparison included a reproduction of the ordinary speaking V °The Chief Justice smiled when counsel said that it was proposed to place the sound film “in the box, and he said it was a “nice” question of law whether it should be allowed. However, he saw no reason to object; but lie was interested to know just how the evidence would be given. He was told that there would be no difficulty in showing the film the Court itself, but then the question arose as to whether a screening in Court would not tend to magnify the sound. He saw no reason why the noises should not be reproduced m the open air, and it then might bo a true reproduction of the volume of sound, and the character of the actual noise. This particular point has been held over pending the hearing of the case.