OCR Text |
Show FEE FOR ADVICE TO CHAPLIN DISCUSSED i 9AI..T LAKE, April 29. Exp. r witnesses on the stand today In the case of the law firm of King A: Scpulr der. suing Charlie Chaplin .the film. omedlafl, declared that 525.000 is not lap unreasonable fee for an attorney jto charge, for advice, even though i' took but a short time to give i'. if the- responsiblllt warranta The co is now being heard "in the I'nited' States district court. Attorneys F.ay Van Cott and A. B. Irvine were on the stand as expert wllneKSos f,ir lh nlnlntlff in the CASe In usinjf the term 'responsibility waa pointe.i out by the wltnesse thai If Chaplin had been rendered advice ad-vice whereby he able to Increase ithe royalty on his picture known a-' ' The Kid" from SHO.Oon to 800i000 ' tin attorneys giving tho advice wer 'Justly entitled to $25,000 or $30,000. i Ifc on the other hand, said Mr Irvine , the attorneys had advised Mr. Chap- I ,lin thai under bis 'contract with the : First National Exhibitors company hei 'was legally bbund to deliver the pic-1 , ture to the company receiving (140,-000 (140,-000 limit ami II WSS then found that lv- could have received a much Isjrgei J sum if he had been properlj advised, then rhe attorno- giving the advice are in everjr wa rcsponsiblaii I |