CINEMA LICENSE

Southland Times, Issue 22043, 16 June 1933, Page 11

CINEMA LICENSE

WRIT OF MANDANUS SOUGHT.

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL INTENDED.

(Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 15. The Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the case Kerridge v. GirlingButcher. The Court found in favour of appellant, and ordered the writ of mandamus prayed for by plaintiff. The Chief Justice held that the regulations under which the defendant purported to act were repugnant to section 32 of the Cinematograph Act, and were also invalid, as they were not authorized by section 26 of the Board of Trade Act. The other members of the Cqurt all held that the regulations were repugnant, Mr Justice Ostler, in addition, holding that they were ultra vires, as not being authorized. The Solicitor-General, on behalf of defendant, made formal application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and asked for an order that the order for a mandamus lie in the office of the Supreme Court until the matter is further considered.

The Court adjourned the application for leave to appeal, and ordered that the writ of mandamus should not issue for seven days. Costs (30gns) and disbursements were allowed plaintiff.

' The Court of Appeal case was an application brought by Robert James Kerridge, of Gisborne, for a writ of mandamus ordering Roy Girling-But-cher, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridge on December 2 last for a license for the projection of a cinematograph film in respect to certain premises to be erected in Hinemoa street, Rotorua. In his statement of claim Kerridge alleged that following his application his solicitors received a letter from Girling-Butcher in which the latter stated that he had received an instruction from the Minister of Industries and Commerce made pursuant to the Board of Trade (Cinematograph Film) Regulations, 1932, directing him not to issue the license asked for, and that he proposed to act under that direction. These proceedings came before Mr Justice Ostler on March 8, and were removed by him into the Court of Appeal. Mr Spratt said the defendant had absolutely refused to consider Kerridge’s application because of an instruction from the Minister purported to be made under the Board of Trade regulations, 1932. Plaintiff claimed that tfiose regulations were ultra vires in that they were made without statutory authority, and they conferred on the Minister powers far wider than those which the Board of Trade Act, 1919, enabled to be conferred. They were so wide as to confer upon the Minister the right to say who would be admitted to the exhibiting industry or the right to say how many or how few picture theatres there would be in each particular town.