BEHIND THE SCENES.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15312, 13 August 1923, Page 6

BEHIND THE SCENES.

A THEATRE TRANSACTION,

REVUE ARTIST SUED

Some interesting sidelights on a theatrical contract were given in the Magistrate's Court at Wellington, when Albert Russell took action against Nat Phillips (more familiarly known as "Stiffy," of the "Sliffy and Mo" revue company), for the recovery of £25, being the alleged amount of a promissory note dated June 15, 1916. A further sum of £l3 0s Sd, was claimed as interest allegedly due. Mr E. Page, S.M., was on the bench. Mr W. L. Rolhenberg appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. G. White represented the defendant. Counsel for the defendant said that six years had elapsed since the note fell due, and according to the Statute of Limitations the money was not recoverable after that period. Mr Rothnberg maintained that'the fact of the defendant's only just arriving 'in New Zealand for the first time during the period considerably altered the situation. Transactions which had taken place in Brisbane in 1916 were outlined by the plaintiff, who said he was then in the theatrical profession as the proprietor of the Bletsoe Revue Company. Phillips entered into negotiation for the purchase of the company, and finally agreed to take over the scripts used in the revue, the scenery, the costumes and effects for £l5O. "I received an order for £125 to be presented to Pullers Theatres, Limited," continued witness, "and that was ultimately paid. Phillips also gave me a promissory note for the balance, to fall due in six months. When the note was presented it was'dishonoured, and payment lias never been made since."

Mr Rothenberg: Had you made any demands for payment before issuing the summons? Witness: Yes: he was written to in Australia: just after the note fell due. Did you make any further demands? —"lmmediately Phillips arrived in New Zealand this year I wrote to him at Auckland. His Worship: What is your definition of a revue, Mr Russell? Witness: A revue is a pot pourri of theatrical works —some talk, some songs and actions and properties put together to form an evening's entertainment.

His Worship: Does a plot run through it? Witness: There is a semblance of a plot, Sir. The defendant told the Court that he had given plaintiff an order for £125 for his revue outfit. He played part of the revues for three and a half months, and then a strike upset matters and the company went into liquidation. The performers were out of work for about six weeks, after which they were engaged for a pantomime entitled, "The Bunyip." Mr White: Were you showing these revues in January, 1917?^ —"No, I was not."

Further questioned the defendant denied that he had used the revues in their entirety. It was necessary, he declared to alter scripts to suit different persons. Mr Rothenberg: Who loaned you the money?—"Sir Benjamin Fuller." Are you sure you did not sell it to him?—."No. How could I sell it? He took it from me because I could not keep up the repayments." Did you say that the "Tree of Truth" gags were used in one pantomime?—'They may have been used, but I did not work them."

Were any other gags from these scripts used? —"None that I know of."

You are playing several revues throughout New Zealand now?—"Yes, my own." Do you use a scene called "The Mad Actress?"—"No."

Are you positive?-—"l'm certain. Not since Sydney." Do you use a scene approximating to that? —"You are referring to the 'Sanatorium.' No, I don't' use it." So Sir Benjamin out of good feeling financed you to purchase these properties from Mr Russell, and to anybody else but himself you were running in opposition to them. Then why did he come down on you and take the show away soon afterwards? —"He did not come down. The thing just ceased and we were engaged by him." Who look the scripts?—"They are still in existence." Who took them? I asked you.—"l think they are in' the head office in Sydney." And the wardrobe? —"That's nonexistent. With ballet girls changing dresses five times a night, you can't expect silks to last for ever." Did not Sir Benjamin Fuller buy from you and then take it over? — "No."

And you ask this Court to believe that a man with his business acumen would do this for you and turn round three weeks later; and take over the show?—"You've got it all wrong. I could not get on. I was not getting enough out of it." You gave at to him? —"Yes, I owed money."

You gave it to him, then, in lieu of money?—"l still had some to pay off."

His Worship: What were the conditions of the repayment of the Joan? Witness: I was to pay so much per week.

I want to know what so much per week means.—"£lo per week." How much did you pay off? —"About £OS or £70." After bearing argument on the legal aspect, His Worship intimated that he would take lime to consider his decision.