The question of the Sarah Bernhardt Theater
What they say at City Hall

The text of the recent judgment which in the question of the Sarah-Bernhardt Theater tends to favor the City of Paris has not yet been communicated to the interested parties. However, here is what Mr. Massard was kind enough to tell us:

The Higher Rent Commission ruling in cassation overturned the first judgment which seemed to it to falsely interpret the law. You know that Sarah Bernhardt had requested, a few months before her death, an extension of her rent, this was granted; she had also requested that the lease be modified in favor of her son, this was refused.

After the death of Sarah Bernhardt, Mr. Maurice Bernhardt was asked by the City to return a theater that the City now considered returned to it, Mr. Maurice Bernhardt refused. The case was brought before the Seine rent commission which ruled in favor of Mr. Maurice Bernhardt. The City appealed. The Higher Rent Commission has just ruled in his favor, but it has however referred the judgment to the Seine-et-Oise Rent Commission.

“We will have to wait two months; until then, the second commission of the Municipal Council will study the various applications, there are twenty-three of them; it seems that the City will request very serious financial guarantees; the fourth commission will decide on the artistic program presented by the candidate we receive; if two candidates offer an equal rental price, the one whose artistic program is judged to be the best will be selected.”

These are the statements that Mr. Massard makes to us. On reflection, it appears that the main question in the case which divides the heirs of Sarah Bernhardt and the City is this: is the extension legally granted to Sarah Bernhardt personal? The City says yes and Mr. Maurice Bernhardt says no. The thesis which seems to have been supported by the defense during the trial would be this: “Ms Sarah Bernhardt notified the Town Hall in due time that she intended to benefit from the extension granted to any tenant. The City accepted without restrictions; she did not specify that this extension was granted to Sarah Bernhardt alone. When the lease was signed, in 1889, could we foresee the law of 1918?

Here, it appears, are the respective positions of the City and the heirs of Sarah Bernhardt. All that remains is to wait for the decision of the Seine-et-Oise rental commission.

We were able to meet, during the afternoon, Mr. Maurice Bernhardt who told us these brief words: I have no statement to make.

The courts have the floor; I suppose they will grant a claim whose obvious justice cannot be denied.
M.F.