THROWN OVERBOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21130, 12 March 1932, Page 2 (Supplement)

THROWN OVERBOARD.

CAPSIZE OF LIFE-BOAT.

FILM ACTOR IN " STUNT."

CLAIM FOR INJURIES FAILS,

The filming of a scene in a Thames dock had a sequel in a London court recently, when James Henisby, an actor, who was #hrown into tho water from a deliberately" capsized lifeboat, unsuccessfully claimed damages for personal injuries.

Plaintiff said ho went to the Surrey Commercial Docks, where a " wreck " scene for tho film " Happy Ending " was being taken at night. All the artists put on seamen's costumes and jumped into the boat. Before the boat, was lowered the producer was on a raft about 25 yards away with the cameras. When he said "Clamour!" the boat was suddenly lowered. Mr. Hemsby said he hit his head on a pulley and his leg was injured. Ho felt himself struggling under the boat, and was rescued by another player. Witness said he received four guineas, which was a guinea more than ho expected. Ho was told that the extra money was because of the time it took to film, and also because the directors were pleased with the result. Defending counsel: During the time you havo done work for this company and another company, have you ever done stunt work ?—Yes.

What arrangements have always been made when you have done stunt work?— You have to sign a contract and the fees are ten guineas and upwards. • Plaintiff added that his earnings, taken over a period of a year, amounted to about £3 a week. Sometimes ho earned £8 and £lO a week. Thirty men wore used for the boat " stunt," hut none of them had a contract. The usual pay for

the scene would be one guinea, except for those in the boat. Judge Hogg: You say this was dono purposely ? Counsel: Absolutely. And you say he was paid an extra fee to run that ri6k ?—As a "stunt man," yes. Plaintiff denied that he was told they were going to be thrown into the water and that he was engaged as a " stunt man." Captain Manley, marine superintendent of the Cunard Company, who had charge of tho arrangements for the " stunt," said the lowering of the boat was under his control. He instructed the artists to stand by and be prepared. Evidence was given that plaintiff did no£ jump clear, as ordered, when the boat was lowered, and therefore he disobeyed instructions. Tho Judge said there was no evidence of negligence. He was satisfied the whole arrangement was explained by a representative of the company, who clearly instructed tho artists regarding what would happen. It was said the company would not press for costs.