RIGHTS REFUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 29 March 1933, Page 5

RIGHTS REFUSED

FILMS LICENSES

APPEAL JUDGES’ CRITICISM.

(Per Press Association Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, March 28. The Court of Appeal is considering the application brought by Robert James Kerridge, of Gisborne, for a writ of mandamus ordering Roy Girling Butcher, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridge on December 2nd last for a license for the protection of cinematograph film in respect ofl certain premises to be erected in Hinemoa Street, Rotorua. Jn his statement of claim, Kerridge alleges that, following on his applica-

tion, his solicitors received a letter

from Girling Butcher wherein the latter stated that he had ' received an instruction from the Minister of Industries and Commerce, made pursuant to the Boat’d of Trade (Cinematograph Filin) Regulations, 1932, directing him not to issue the license asked for; and that he proposed to act under that direction. TlieSe proceedings cante be* fore Mr Justice Ostler on the Bth in* stant, and were removed by him into the Court of Appeal. , Air Spratt, with him Mr Hurley, are appearing for the plaintiff. Mr: Fair (Solicitor-General) appears for the defendant.

Mr Spratt sajd that 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 those regulations were ultra vires, ip that they were made without statutory authority. They conferred on the Minister powers far wider than those which the B’oard of Trade Act, 1919, enabled to be conferred. They were so wide as to confer upon the Minister the right to say who to he admitted to the exhibiting industry, or the right to say how many, or how few, picture theatres there may be in each particular town. Section 32 of the Cinematograph Films Act gave to any applicant the absolute right to an exhibitors’ license. The regulations, in so far as they purported to take away that right, were repugnant to the Statute) and were, therefore, had. Th'e effect of these regulations, if they were' to stand, was alarming. They created in the hands of the Minister the power to rule the industry as he thought fit —to create a monopoly in favour of any particular theatre—and no exhibitor, hoWevei* humble) could ex*' Libit'if he chose to sliy, "Thou shalt not!” The provisions of regulations and. the provisions of the Cineliiato graph Act could not stand together, am! therefore, the former mast go.

Lastly, Air Spratt submitted that, if the regulations could be sustained, then Parliament had abdicated its right and duty to legislate in respect of those matters with which the regulations deal.

To tins last point, Mr Justice MacGregor replied: “I don’t think that’s very astonishing to us in New Zealand.” Opening the case for the defendant, the Solocitor-General submitted,, that the whole question depended solely on the construction of Section 26 of the Board of Trade Act. That section, he contended, was wide enough to empower the Governor-General-in-Council to issue tile regulations which now

were in dispute. The Chief Justice, Sir M. Mvers: “According to your view, this section gives the Governor-General-in-Council the power to prevent all grocers, except one, operating in Lambton Quay.”

Mr Justice Reed: “Or to say that the Supreme Court shall not, until a further order from the Minister, admit any more solicitors toi the bar.” Mr Justice Ostler said that the reguhsfcions seemed to him to take away most of the freedom that he thought the citizens of this country possessed. It appeared to give the Minister the power to say that any young man that bad qualified himself by examination should not enter into the profession of his choice.

The Chief Justice then asked the Solicitor-General whether the Court should not exert all its ingenuity to avoid all these alleged consequences. The Solicitor-General vsubmitted that such was not the position, but, in any event, the words of the section were plain. The Court was bound to enforce them, no matter, how unpleasant; it might be. Mr Justice MacGregor suggested that a good “short title” for Board of Trade. Act would he “more government in business.” Mr Justice Reed asked where the legislation camd from. On the Solicitor-General stating that he did not know, the Judge said: “Not Russia, I suppose!” Mr Spratt: “No! ‘Made in New Zealand !’ ”

Dealing with the necessity for Regulations, the Solicitor-General said that, prior to April, 1932, certain la rarer a"d more important firms had entered into combination, pooling their profits, and generally co-operating with one another. This combination controlled the largest and most popular theatres in the chief towns, arid, consequently, were able to obtain contracts for the use of most important pictures from renters. It has been alleged that, in certain towns', members of the combination had approach-

ed independent exhibitors and threatened to erect competitive threatres unless such owners were agreeable to lease their theatres to their combination. and agree that they, should be entitled to half the net profits. The combination, by its business and influence with renters, would enable any of its members to obtain a, monoply c-f early bookings in any town, and would destroy the business of existing companies. Itj was at this type of competition that the regulations 'were aimed. The Chief Justice remarked that regulations could be devised to meetunfair competition: but that was a far differen t thing from the regulations in question.The Court adjourned until to-mor-row.