CONTROL OF THEATRE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27043, 30 March 1949, Page 6

CONTROL OF THEATRE

PORT CHALMERS CONCERN SUPREME COURT CLAIM “ This venture seems to have been characterised by very small profits and sometimes losses," remarked Mr Justice Hay in the Supreme Court at Dunedin yesterday during a case in which the Laurier Picture Theatre, Ltd., sought possession of its building at Port Chalmers from Mrs Marjorie Gertrude Nelson, the present tenant. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the plaintiff and the defendant was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson. Mr Neill said that the shareholders of the Laurier Theatre Company were the pioneers of the picture business in Port Chalmers. In 1912 Walter Hutton started to show pictures in Port Chalmers. In 1915 an opposition theatre was opened, but this organisation was subsequently purchased by the Huttons. In 1928, the present Laurier Theatre was built, the cost being between £SOOO and £6OOO, "to provide a respectable theatre for the residents.” More money was spent on installing equipment for talking pictures. In 1933 the depression struck and eventually in 1940 the theatre was leased by a receiver to another person, Mr Neill continued. The lease was later renewed which took it to November 3Q, 1948. In the meantime the lessee sold out to the husband of the present tenant. He had died and she had carried on the business.

Counsel submitted that in equity Hutton had a good claim for the possession of the building. He was a pioneer of the picture business in Fort Chalmers, he had a personal interest in that he held an exhibitor’s licence, and through no fault of his own, the business had been leased. The plaintiff now wanted to improve the theatre for the Fort Chalmers residents. Mr Neill said that the Laurier Picture Theatre Company had a capital of £4OOO. Walter Hutton had 3186 ordinary shares and Miss Laurie Hutton 814 preference shares.'

Walter Hutton said that in 1933 a receiver appointed by a debenture holder thought he could do better with the business himself and asked the witness to leave. The receiver ran the business until 1937, when the property was leased. Hutton said he had been in the theatre business since 1912 and his whole capital was invested in that business. At the present time, the theatre at Port Chalmers was dilapidated. If given possession of the theatre he proposed to renovate the building. To Mr Anderson witness said he did not know where the defendant could go to recover the capital she had put into the theatre. After a fire last year, new projectors had been purchased. “ I would not say I could get better pictures than Mrs Nelson is getting now.” witness said. Horace Keeler Camp, a director of the Love Construction Company, of Port Chalmers, said that the building was in need of renovation. Witness estimated that £955 would have to be spent to put the theatre in order. He valued the building, seating and furnishing at £11,500. John Henry Aloysuls McKeefry, public accountant and. secretary of the Laurier Picture Theatre, Ltd., gave evidence concerning profits and losses of the theatre. For the defence, Mr Anderson said that the cost of the one theatre at Port Chalmers hardly justified the thoughts of the plaintiff towards possession- Port ..Chalmers had a static population ana the picture theatre was the type of investment which one could hardly regard as good. Mr Anderson said that the defendant had committed herself regarding new machines purchased after the fire. The cost was £7OO or more. Repairs inside the theatre were estimated at £2OO. After discussing the matter of relative hardship. Mr Anderson said: "I must say that sooner or later Hutton is entitled to get these premises. They are his. On the other hand, a law exists and the defendant is entitled to invoke its aid.” The defendant should be given some time to recover what she had put into the business, he added. Evidence was given by the defendant, also David Boyd Leslie, a Dunedin accountant, and James McConnell Porteous, retired railway clerk, of Dunedin, who had advanced money to the defendant for the running of the theatre. A partnership existed between witness and the defendant. The case was adjourned until this morning.