PICTURE SHOW DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17113, 19 March 1919, Page 5

PICTURE SHOW DISPUTE.

. *» ' I EVERYBODY'S THEATRE CASE. AN INJUNCTION REFUSED. Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court yesterday m the civil action in which the film company known as the New Zealand Picture Supplies, Limited (Mr. Ostler), was plain;ifi and tho Gaiety Theatre, Limited, proprietors of Everybody's Theatre, and Arthur Ernest Coe, broker, of Auckland Dr. Baraford), were defendants. The Dlaintiff company had asked for the issue )f an interim injunction— further action a pending— restrain the second-named lefendant from committing farther alleged breaches of an agreement made between ,he plaintiffs and the first-named defendant m April 15, 1915. The agreement conferred on the plaintiff company the sole •ight to supply films for Everybody's Theatre, and also to manage tho theatre. Dr. Bamford, in the course of the defence, stated that Cm alleged mismanagement and neglect on the part of the plaintiffs, and asserted that the quality of films supplied was unsatisfactory; that lower jrade films had been introduced when he isked for a ballot, and that other theatres bad been favoured 'at the expense of I ' Everybody's." Tho " best endeavours" I Jause, counsel said, was hard to enforce, I Mid his client felt that if he reverted to', the old system there was grave danger of ' further neglect in the next three months, j The proceedings were the result of the fiction of Coe in taking possession of the j theatre and procuring films elsewhere. I In refusing the injunction yesterdav, the Judge said that the case resolved itself, into a question whether the granting of ,he injunction would cause more injury to the defendants than refusal to grant it • ivould inflict upon the plaintiffs. His con- J dusion was that the plaintiffs would suffer less by comparison if the injunction were : -efused. While the plaintiffs were not j supplying the films the theatre was being I ran as usual, and* any change in lha management, pending the hearing of tho egal proceedings two months hence, would involve changes in the staff and a renewal ?f the deputes as to the quality of tho ilms supplied. The loss of profits alleged by the plaintiffs could be easily assessed it the subsequent hearing. The injunction • was refused. £10 10s 1 costs and disburse-! menta being allowed against the plaintiffs.