USE OF NAVY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 366, 7 March 1932, Page 4

USE OF NAVY.

Admiralty’s Action Decried by Judge. PRODUCTION OF FILM. (Special to the “ Star.”) LONDON, January 11. The use of British warships and naval men for the production of a film was described recently by Mr Justice Charles as “ lamentable.” “ There is to me something very sordid in our great ships and our sailors being used for purposes of this sort,” he said. y He was dealing in the King’s Bench Division with an action arising out of the production of “ The Flag Lieutenant.” Astra National Productions, Ltd., of Wardour Street. W.C., were sued by the Admiralty for £1607 as an additional share of the proceeds due to them under an agreement made in June, 1926. “Is it anticipated when the Navy Vote is passed that the personnel of our Navy will be used for making a film?” asked the judge. Mr H. Collins (counsel for the Addiralty) replied: “No doubt anything .made out of it comes into the accounts and is appropriated in aid.” Mr Vick (for the film company) : I believe the whole of it goes not to improving the personnel as actors but as sportsmen, because it goes into the sports accounts. Judge’s Doubts. Under the agreement, said Mr Collins, the Admiralty were to have 15 per cent of the balance of the receipts from the film after deducting the actual cost of production, distribution, etc., but if the agreement meant what defendants suggested, it was obvious (counsel continued) that they could so arrange their finances that in no event could the Admiralty get anything at all. Mr Justice Charles: That comes of the Admiralty embarking on things of this sort. You will have to satisfy me that this is a lawful agreement—whether the Admiralty have the power to use the ships and personnel of the Navy for the purposes of making such a contract.

Mr Collins: The Admiralty can use the ships and personnel, so far as the courts are concerned, how they please. Any complaint to be made is made in Parliament.

The Judge: The Admiralty enter into this only “so far as it lawfully may do.” Isn’t that for the Court to interpret unless they have some special Act or Order in Council enabling them to

do it? I am not at all satisfied that they can do this lawfully at all. If the agreement is unlawful I cannot implement it. Popularising the Navy. Mr Collins: One cannot think this was done only for gain but for other considerations behind it. It might be popularising the Navy. Mr Justice Charles: And it might do exactly the reverse. Some films concerning the Army—not the Army of this country—in my judgment bring the Army into utter contempt. Mr Collins pointed out that the defendants had not pleaded that the contract was illegal. Counsel said the Admiralty had received £3OOO on account and contended they had been underpaid. Defendants counter-claimed £2828, which they contended had been overpaid, and said that later accounts which had come in increased the counter-claim by £306. In the end the judge decided that the Admiralty had been overpaid by. £ll2.