"Blind?" No, Said the Motion Picture 



Its testimony proved that a "blind" man could 

 see, and thus reversed the decision of the court 



At left:' The supposedly 

 blind man accommodates 

 the lady by hanging her 

 furs on the clothes line 



At right: He lights a cigar 

 from the flame of a 

 match held in the motion- 

 picture man's fingers 



A 



RE you the 

 owner of this 

 property ? 



asked a passer-by of 

 Peter Zyla, who was 

 busily engaged in his 

 poultry yard on the 

 outskirts of Chicago, 

 negotiating a sale of 

 pigeons to a teamster 

 who seemed hard to 

 suit in the matter of 

 the color and markings of the birds. 

 The stranger carried a camera, and while 

 he waited for Zyla's attention he took a 

 picture of the pigeons — and of the agile 

 Zyla. When the birds had been delivered 

 and the teamster had driven off, Zyla 

 turned his attention to the man with the 

 camera. By that 

 time another visitor 

 had appeared on the 

 scene. She stood 

 beside the man with 

 the camera and gave 

 Peter a smile which 

 warmed the cockles 

 of his bachelor heart. 

 They wanted to take 

 motion pictures with 

 plenty of local color, 

 they said . Of course 

 Zyla consented. He 

 was even obliging 

 enough to take a 

 part in the scene. 

 He hung clothes on 

 the line, noncha- 

 lently lighted a cigar 



Shaking hands with the director after the 

 "play" is over. The camera gets it all 



Portions of the film exhibited in court. Zyla 

 admitted posing but claimed that he did exactly 

 as he was told, even in the "flirtation" parts 



578 



and registered just the 

 proper amount of in- 

 terest — and perhaps a 

 trifle more — when the 

 lady exposed the trim- 

 mest of trim ankles in 

 ascending and descend- 

 ing a ladder. 



But alas for the ro- 

 mantic possibilities! 

 The film was later pro- 

 duced in court as "ex- 

 hibit A" in a suit against Zyla brought by 

 an accident and indemnity company to 

 prove that Zyla had not been blinded, as he 

 claimed, by the alternating heat and cold 

 of the plant in which he worked. The in- 

 demnity company had planned the entire 

 scene, even the purchase of the pigeons in 

 the first act. 



The State Indus- 

 trial Beard had de- 

 cided that Zyla was 

 entitled to damages 

 under the Work- 

 men's Compensation 

 Act, but the indem- 

 nity company ,which 

 insured the plant 

 against loss under 

 the Act, decided to 

 make some investi- 

 gations on its own 

 initiative before 

 obeying the order of 

 the Court. The 

 case was finally de- 

 cided in favor of the 

 indemnity company. 



