“ NO, NO, NANETTE ” PROFITS REVEALED IN COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17905, 22 July 1926, Page 8

“ NO, NO, NANETTE ” PROFITS REVEALED IN COURT.

INVESTORS GET £IOO,OOO RETURN ON £14,500 CAPITAL ‘‘Almost the greatest success in musical plays of this generation was counsel’s description of "‘No, No. Nanette ” during the hearing of a theatrical libel action before Mr Justice Ilorridge and a special jury in London recently. Mr Herbert Clay tort and Mr John Waller, of the firm of Clayton and Waller, theatrical producers, ( haring Cross Road, brought the action against Variety Incorporated, an American company, and Mr J. Lowe, of St Martin's Place. W„ in connection with an article in a journal called “ Variety.” Mr J. 8.. Melville, for Mr Clayton and Mr Waller, said the action arose out of the successful production of the musical play, “No, No, Nanette,” first produced by the plaintiffs on March 11, 1925, at the Palace Theatre. The capital required was £14,600, of which Mr Clayton and Mr Waller put up £SBOO. The balance of £8,700 was provided by thirty separate individuals. By May 23, 1925, the whole of the £14,500 was repaid to the investors, and, by June 3, a further £79,750 was repaid to investors. ! There was a further sum of £20,000 in hand. The play was still running, a nd there were four touring compknies. 50 that still further profits would accrue. In those Circumstances, counsel continued, tfiere was published in the journal “ Variety,” in October, 1925, the following Despite the enormous success registered by “No, No, Nanette” at the. Palace, there is apparently little P ro ‘ fit to be divided among the stockholders, as was predicted before the piece opened here. The combination of rental and sharing terms with the j

house, coupled with the expensive cast and production, has left comparatively* little. Nor does the management anticipate any huge dividends in the immediate future. According to one report, one of the investors endeavoured recently to realise his stock at par and found no takers.

There was no appearance for the defendant company; and as Mr I.owe (sued as the London representative of the paper) had sworn in interrogatories that he had nothing to do with the writing or publication of the article, Mr Melville askad for judgment against the company only*. The jury "found that the article was defamatory*, and assessed damages if £SOO. Judgment was accordingly entered against Variety Incorporated for £SOO with costs, and judgment for Mr Lowe with costs.