CERTIFICATE FOR FILM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20536, 10 April 1930, Page 12

CERTIFICATE FOR FILM.

CENSOR'S RECOMMENDATION.

MANAGER FINED FOR BREACH

[by telegraph.—own correspondent. CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday.

The first case of its kind to be brought in New Zealand was heard in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court to-day beforo Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., when a moving picture exhibitor, Herbert Gladstone Hill, was fined £1 and costs for failure to state in one of his advertisements that a film was recommended by the censor as suitable more especially 'for adult audiences.

, Mr. Girling Butcher, chief inspector under tho Cinematograph Films Act, said that in some advertisements defendant had given notice of the censor's recommendation, but he had failed to do so in an advertisement which appeared in ono paper. The censor gave this certificate in cases in which pictures were more or less of a salacious character, or in which they were not suitable for children to see. He also gavo a certificate in cases in which scenes of violonce, robbery and so on were shown.

This did not mean that managers must exclude children from the performances. There was another certificate given for this purpose by tho censor if the film were sufficiently objectionable. The certificate which defendant was concerned with was simply for the information of parents.

In connection with tho film concerned, defendant advertised in some papers. In others lie raised the question of giving the certificate. In one advertisement he not only omitted reference to the certificate, but said:—"Bring your children." The wide range for which this certificate was given made it of no use for tho advertising of salacious films. The department was brirfging tho prosocution becauso it desired to give publicity to the reason for the issuing of tho certificate and the necessity for advertising it. Defendant said ho had a wide experience of educational films, and although ho took up the attitude that the picture was most suitable for children, he not only advertised that tho certificate was given but stated his disagreement with the department. In the caso in which lie did not do so, there was a full page advertisement in which were advertised two pictures. Ho had already given considerable prominence to the certificate and, not wishing to make more of it, having inado his protest, he left reference to it out of this advertisement. . Defendant said tho Act provided that, in addition to advertising tho certificate in _ the nowspapers, managers wore required to place a notice in the lobby of the theatre drawing attention to tho certificate, but this was not done by managers.

Tho Magistrate: I suppose this may bo taken as a further protest. Defendant: If Your Worship chooses to regard it in that way I must accept it. Iho magistrate said the case was the first of its kind and did not call for a heavy penalty. Defendant would bo fined £1 and costs.