THEATRICALS IN COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 81, 9 April 1915, Page 6

THEATRICALS IN COURT.

RENT OF THE TOWN HALL IN DISPUTE. At the Magistrate's Court, Stratford, this morning, before Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., the case Angeline Diamond v. G. Stephenson and A. Linley was heard, this being a claim for £5, being, rent for Town Hall for March 13th, it being alleged that this date was hooked by defendants for an appearance of the Florence Young Company. Mr R. Spence appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. C. Fookes for defendants. The only witness for plaintiff was William Diamond, who gave evidence that he received a telegram from Victor Beck, a well-known theatrical agent, at that time iii the employ.of the defendants, asking him to book Jthe Town Hall for March 13th. To this telegram witness replied that the hall would be booked. Mathieson succeeded Beck as agent for defendants, and witness received letters from him, in one of which it.was said that plaintiff might take it as final that the company would play iu Stratford on March ISA. By Mr Fookes: When the first telegram was received from Beck, witness knew he was acting for defendants, though he had acted as agent for several companies. Witness booked in his diary for the Florence Young Company. He seldom had any pencillings. He cancelled two dates. It was witness' invariable practice to get a deposit if ho could. He did not tell .Mathieson the hall had been hooked. On March sth Messrs Stephenson and Linley were iir Stratford, and witness asked them about March 13th. They did not say they did not want the hall on that date. Witiless«jid not say that he never booked without a deposit being paid. He was not aware at that time defendants had nothing to do with the Florence Young Company, but knew Low was, the agent for the pantomime, and dates were booked for the latter show.' Witness told Low that all dates had been cancelled by Mathieson. Witness did not say anyV thing to Low about suing the company for the cancelled dates, nor did he tell Low that his invariable custom was to have a deposit before booking the hall. He received a money order telegram on February 22nd for £2 10s, but this did not refer to the March 13th booking. I

THE DEFENCE. George Stephenson, theatrical manager, said that Beck represented several dramatic companies. Witness did not receive any notice whatever about the booking of the hall for March 13th for the Florence 'Young Company. He was in Stratford on March oth with the Pantomime Company, and there met plaintiff, and asked him what he meant by asking for a deposit. Plaintiff said that it was an invariable rule. Witness did not hear anything about the claim for rent till he received the summons last week. Plaintiff said that the hall was never booked till a deposit was paid, and for that reason he had senfc;a deposit for the pantomime. By Af r Spence : MathieSon had told him about the Florence Young Company, but did not tell him the date which had been pencilled. Witness was not able to get into the hall without paying the deposit. The company paid deposits on all small halls in the Dominion.

Alfred Linley, who is in partnership With Stephenson, said he had been in the business for about 2G years. He was in Stratford on March sth' and had an interview with plaintiff, Stephenson being present. Ho know the hall had been pencilled for the Florence Young Company on March 13. Plaintiff said there was no booking without a deposit. He considered the hooking as cancelled. By Mr Spence: He knew that the hall was pencilled: if it had been booked, it would have heen different. He thought the matter was ended. Mathiosou cancelled the date for which no deposit was paid. He-examined: The rule throughout Sow Zealand ..was that there was no bonding until the deposit was paid. William Albert Low; theatrical agent, said he was in Stratford on February 27th, and saw plaintiff and toh] him he was representing the pantomime. Plaintiff said that all dates were cancelled. They could do nothing without paying a deposit. Mr Spence contended that there was a complete contract in the correspondence produced in Court. -Mr Pookes held that the cancellation was agreed plaintiff. There was a custom among theatrical companies that pencilling did not mean booking. If it Was not a condition, why did plaintiiff apply so repeatedly for payment of the deposit. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said the documentary evidence "as quite clear. One telegram had said definitely to book for March 13th, and there was no condition in the tele, 'giam from plaintiff that the deposit had to be paid. The hall was absolutely booked, and when plaintiff replied that he had booked the hall there was a contract. The conversation'on March sth did not show that the parties arrived at a cancellation of the contract. Where there was » written contract, there must he some definite cancellation. But the defendants took up the position that there was never any contract. The evidence of defendants in regard to the conversation was more to be relied upon than witness' for the plaintiff. By something in the sonversation the defendants were misled. Judgment was given Tor plaintiff for £5, with costs £1 18s.