New Britain herald., 1919-12-04
HEATRICAL FEUD IS AIRED IN COURT
|miCan and Levitt Tell Of Their Differences

1uVll UllOl GuUCo
 Nhe case of George Levitt against 5 eS Cormican, of New York, for Ely manager of the theatrical @pe which played at the Lyceum Bter during the past summer, in Nch the plaintiff brought suit for Np for the use of the scenery and Sp for damage to the same was Nlght to trial in the city court be N Judge James T. Meskin th:s Nnlng. Judge Frederick E. Hun N Nordl-appeared as counsel for the Nntlff, and Lawyer Michael X. zgon was counsel for the defendant E Writ was in two parts, the first of zen alleged use of the plaintiff 5 aery and the second damage to the zSe, The defendant admitted the M part and entered a denial to the z8nd. As consequence of this, the was amended and the amount ot N alleged damage to the property placed at $500.
 E8 Levitt Takes stand
 95he plaintiff was the first witness Taed 10 the stand. He said he is the gee and principal stocl1holder of N Lyceum theater. He stated that ]. theatcr, under his ownership, @aincd six sets of scenery and ho aribed the scenery and gave an |#'oNimatc cost, of it. He testified Ha in the early part of last~.summ cr, and the defendant entered into ln cement for the. lease of the thea l During~t his talk, at which there |E no witnesses, the plaintiff said, 3mcntion of scenery was made and EH defendant, upon learning that the ga ter was .prabably.- without ade- Etc scenery for stock productions, 7 lle'yed to have told the plaintiff |a lC had scenery stored ill New |#ey which hc would have brought |3his city and placed in the theater. I plaintiff said that the new lessee 4h he building had been given the 8 of certain, pieces of scenery with. ! permission. Of making necessary |#hges to conform with the needs ct 8 production playing. This, how 7, the plaintiff said, did not in- 2e the cutting of scenery which, he I8ged, the defendant had done. MT.
 Eitt said that the scenery, under Iownership, was 16 feet in height, 8quate for vaudeville purposes, and 8ch, according to his statem ents, ii
 pluteIy necessary for such per- 1nances He placed the value Of 8 scenery at 300. 7 Claims Scenery Cut.
 IF. Levitt, said that on the open I night of the performance of the 7mican Players he thought he de- Fed a change in the height of the 6hery and tfupor investigation he 8hd that it had, been reduced in N to IA feet. F'ur.he-. inquiry of I stage manager disclosed that the zlage incurred by the cutting &lld amount to $500. In answer to Question by Judge Hungerford, Mr. &Vitt said that MT. Cormican had at Ntime made any effort to repair the 4lage done to the scenery.
 4aWyer Sexton questioned the 8ntiff at considerable length In Nwer to the question as to how long Hhad been in the theatrical business, # witness said about two and one- &f years. He said he was not en- Ely conYersant with theatrical GUS
 ls. It was early in May that he Mt met the defendant, he stated. &What took place?'' asked Lawyer Ston.
 Ion, just ordinary business" an 8red Mr. Levitt.
 & don't want the ordinary, but the M ual business,'' said Lawyer Sexton. Ar. Levitt then stated that Mr.
 'mican had spoken to him abo It M leasing of the theater and in reply n Levitt said he informed MT. Cor
 gan that the theater could be rent Fl for a period of 12 weeks. It was
 ing this time that the conversa-
 relative to the scenery took place (which the defendant was said by
 Levitt to have promised to se- Me his scenery from New Jersey. #c plaintiff stated there were no
 nesses to the signing of the agree
 nt for the use Of the theater. The &nsel for the defendant asked MT. RNitt if there had been any men &l of the use of the theater scenery ing this conversation which &ught a negative answer from the &intiff ' EAnd now you are suing him for
 use Of it," Lawyer. Sexton said 8Ie further questioned the plaintiff 8ative to the changes in the scenery Ems made. To this the plaintiff said #lnges would be agreeable, but that # damage was to be done. At this T cture some of Lawyer Sexton s
 stiOns were not clear to the wit =
 S and Judge Meskill asked the #yer to put them in a manner that 8y would be more answerable. < il answer to q question of Lawyer
 Eton's as to why the defendant buld cut tne scenery. Mr. LeWitt &d he knew of no other reason than