Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

LAW REPORT.

[Wednesday, February G.

SUPREME COURT.

Before his. Honour Mr Justice Beal.

"THE CHURCH AND TUB WOMAN."

The dispute luth regird to rival pic tnro (productiona ivas a¿ain before hia Honour Mr Justuc Heal, in the bupiomo Court, when un application waa made by Mr Mitgic¿or, with turn (Mr. i'ihey (instructed by Alessis J. i\ EiiU Ucrald und A\ a¿h), on behalt oí the plaintiffs, Humbert Pugleise, of ¡sidney, anil Udward fchnith and John William Brook, ot Bri. bone, for an lratcrjocutory injunction restraining the defendant, Dawd Ogih ic, of New l'\irm, Brisbane, from prod-uemjr, 01 in unj way advertis- ing a production undei the title of "The f uue'i md the i.un," 01 under any Kiuuku title v.i'eulated to mislead the publii, tj believe tluit the defendant's

tilín -HIS tile same as the pUintaffB film,. '"1 lie Chure.li and the Woman "

Ali II Mitrossan (instructed by Me^sr« M'Cntli and Hunter) appealed foi ti c defendant

'.ovcial afiida\iU weie lead on both »ides, firmi which it appeared that the pi untifls lind 'bought the Queensland n"'hts of the film, entitled "The Cliureh and the Woman," and that the détend- ant bad purc.hai.ed ii film called "Slater lieatiix," and iliad changed the name rf if to ' The Olnrreh and thti Nun " Phin tiffs submitted that the object of the chango was to lead to contusion by the public of the two productions

Aflci hearing atguroent, and on the defendant undertaking that be would lut, eitbei by bimselr or hy lus sen ant-., H ot knien," oi agents, ad\erti«c the iii ii

known ai "The Church and tlio >.un ' l'\ that title, oi under any siniilai /title, cither in the Près? or on netnee boards, p stci-i, oi dodgcis, in in .my other manner w-nate-v er. or pioduce oi thon, or be concerned or interested in any way in oiij advertise nient, pioductwm, or <-howing of the «said film undci that oi any similar title w ith out i learlv and sufficiently indicating that the said ulm was not a repi centa- ur«! of tho plaintiffs' film, known as "Thr- Church and the Woman," and that lie -would not, cither by himself or by his menants, -woikmen, or agents, enter into, or attempt to enter into in any con trict or agreement, for the sale, tran - for lease, or use of the sand film without m-iking it a term of tilt said contine t or iwii cement that the said film was not to be advertised, produced, or shown in any w-1} under the title of "The Church ahd the Nun," oi any similar title, without clearly and sufficiently indicating that 't uu< not a representation of plaintiffs' film, known as "The Ohnroh and the Woman," his Honour gave nidgmcnt for the plamtifls, with costs fcved at 40

guineas

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down