Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

Majors Gain in Court Order That Witnesses Be Named (Continued from page 19) for an order directing the petitioner to furnish a more definite statement and a bill of particulars was to obtain particulars of the alleged monopolies, attempts to monopolize, contracts, combinations and conspiracies and the details thereof in order that proper answers may be drawn and the defendants be apprised of the precise nature of the petitioner’s alleged complaint. A proper response to this court’s decision undoubtedly would have clarified the issues and facilitated the task of the defendants in answering and preparing for trial. Many of the particulars furbished are vague and meaningless and, in many respects, are unresponsive to the court’s decision; moreover, in some instances they have the effect of confusing the issues and increasing the burden of the defendants. I believe that it would serve no useful purpose to repeat the items or to point out in this affidavit in detail wherein the particulars are deficient, the annexed motion being incorporated in this affidavit by reference. “An important and typical example of the vague and unresponsive character of the bill concerns the particulars furnished as to the time of the beginning and the duration of the alleged combinations and conspiracies complained of. In some instances in which such particulars were ordered to be furnished the petitioner has supplied the unenlightening information that such violations commenced sometime between 1919 and 1930, in other instances between 1918 and 1928, and in other instances sometime during the period since 1918. Term Time Stated “Vague” “The allegations of the petition indicate the alleged combinations and conspiracies are not claimed to have commenced prior to the late 1930’s. Vague as such allegations are, they are supplemented by even more indefinite statements in the bill of particulars, such as those referred to above. Each moving defendant is entitled to more accurate and specific information as to when such alleged violations commenced and the duration thereof. “It is respectfully submitted that one of the main purposes of the court’s decision, namely, the elimination of the burden and necessity of examining hundreds of thousands of items covering the corporate defendants’ activities for a number of years past, will be nullified unless petitioner is compelled to supply the information in its possession with respect to the aforesaid items of the decision. It will be impossible adequately to prepare the case of the defendants for trial unless such particulars are supplied by petitioner. “3 — The moving defendants are obviously entitled to the particulars with respect to the matters referred to in paragraph ‘HI’ of the annexed motion, all of which this court has directed the petitioner to furnish either to Columbia or to UA. “4 — The moving defendants have also included in the annexed motion an ap Distribution Methods Hit in Reply to UA (Continued from page 19) which is necessary for the regular requirements of such exhibitors. “The petitioner claims that such overbuying by unscrupulous exhibitors was done with the knowledge, connivance or approval of UA.” And to this, it is added, “the petitioner does not claim that the result whereby unscrupulous exhibitors are permitted to overbuy is usually brought about by agreements or understandings between UA and such unscrupulous exhibitors other than the usual license agreement for the exhibition of motion pictures. The petitioner does claim overbuying results from present licensing methods.” The government claims it is the distributor’s duty to ascertain whether an exhibitor can legitimately use the product before a contract is signed. Under the present system it is charged this is not done and it is impossible to fix the responsibility on any one distributor. It is also claimed in the particulars that rentals are too high and that subsequent runs are charged more than affiliated circuits. “UA and its agents have refused to license many pictures distributed unless the independent exhibitor agrees to license said pictures upon a percentage of the gross boxoffice receipts. Because UA and all other defendants refused to license many pictures distributed by them to independent exhibitors except upon terms based upon a percentage of the gross boxoffice receipts, independent exhibitors are forced to accept those terms if they wish to stay in business.” plication for an order extending their time to answer the petition until 60 days after service upon attorneys for defendants of a copy of a further bill of particulars directed to be furnished by the order to be entered upon this motion, or in the event that this motion be denied in all respects, until 60 days after service upon solicitors for such defendants of a copy of the order denying such motion with notice of entry thereof. Such additional time will be required by the defendants in order that they can properly prepare answers to the petition.” The motion for the further particulars is 26 pages long and is supplemented by a four-page affidavit. L. Jack Schlaifer, western sales manager for UA, is slated to testify before examination Monday. He returned from the Hollywood sales convention over the weekend. Seymour Krieger, assistant to the attorney general, is scheduled to handle the questioning for the government, and Edward C. Raftery of O’Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, and Benjamin Pepper of the same office, will represent the UA legal battery. Product Refusal as Retaliation Denied New York — Austin C. Keough, vicepresident and general counsel of Paramount, denies statements attributed to him by Paul Williams, assistant attorney general in the all-industry suit, that Paramount had refused product to an independent, because such independent had sued the company. Keough declares this statement is untrue. He says Williams only read that portion of his testimony which suited his purposes and omitted the rest. The case in question, declares Keough, is that of Rubin Frels of Texas. Despite the fact that Paramount was servicing him with first run product, despite a 50 per cent interest in opposition theatres. Frels, according to Keough, was stirring up as much trouble as he possibly could in persuading others to bring actions against Paramount on conspiracy charges. All the actions brought, including one by B. Legg, who sued to prevent Paramount from servicing a rival of his, were lost and Frels financed the latter suit, states Keough. For this reason, Paramount did not want to do business with a man who “was so unscrupulous as to charge us falsely with conspiracy to drive an exhibitor out of business,” Keough asserts. He declared further that in 1934 Paramount offered Frels one half of its product in Victoria, Tex., and all of its product in the rest of Texas where Frels had theatres. Frels demanded all the product for Victoria as well, which was refused him, according to Keough. Paramount has never denied an exhibitor product because he was a witness against it and, furthermore, never will, he maintains. Domestic and Foreign Executives Arrive New York — Hal Wallis, Warner production executive, sails Wednesday on the Queen Mary with wife Louise Fazenda on a British production checkup for Warner. Ben Goetz, Metro British production head, and his family sail on the Nieuw Amsterdam Tuesday. Charles Munroe of Hoyts circuit, Australia; E. T. Carr, co-managing director for United Artists in England, and Ralph Doyle, RKO Australian manager, were other Friday arrivals. George J. Schaefer, RKO president, and Gordon Youngman, attorney, planed in Thursday. Monogram Five-Month Profit Totals $57,308.42 New York — Monogram’s consolidated profit for the first five months of the current period ended April 1 totaled $57,308.42. Profits for the first three months of the current year aggregated $20,175.74, after amortization. Tlje figures do not provide for federal tax, but compare with a loss of $35,956.05 the first 1938 quarter. 20 BOXOFFICE :: May 20, 1939