Boxoffice (Jan-Mar 1939)

CONSPIRACY CHARGING RANKS AUGMENTED RY $100,000 POLLARD SUIT OF M&H AND MAJORS Humford, Me., Exhibitor's JVIbW' DopOSitlOIlS Revolving on "Protection " Boston — Damages in the amount of $100,000 on charges of monopoly and conspiracy in restraint of trade are asked in a suit filed in federal district court here by Edmund G. Pollard, operator of the Opera House in Rumford, Me., against the Maine and New Hampshire Theatres Co. and eight major distributors. George S. Ryan is his attorney. “Prior to or during the year 1934, in violation of the anti-trust laws of the United States,” the complaint avers, “the defendants entered into an unlawful combination and conspiracy to restrain and to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in motion picture films, and particularly the right to contract for and to exhibit said films in the said City of Rumford.” It is also alleged that “in pursuance of said combination and conspiracy,” Maine and New Hampshire Theatres Company opened the Arcadia in Rumford following opening of the Opera House. Complaints of “usually not less than six months” protection are made. Specific charges against the Maine and New Hampshire Theatres Co., Paramountaffiliated circuit also a defendant in the extant Morse and Rothenberg action, are that the chain “has attempted to accomplish, and has actually accomplished” an alleged monopoly by the following means: (a) By “contracts or franchise with the defendant distributors, many of them for the period of ten years.” (b) By “requests in writing to the de fendant distributors for the reservation of their product in specified localities, which requests have been invariably complied with” and by “master contracts” or “annual deals” for the use of the films reserved. (c) By “exclusive licenses to exhibit said films within the specified territory, or the license to the exclusive first-run of said films; and that the distributor should give the said defendants’ theatres substantially the same average protection from competition, in time and area, as that given by its own affiliated distributor (Paramount) or by the other defendant distributors.” (d) By “compiling, and being granted, protection scales, both in time and territory.” (e) By allegedly inducing, coercing, or persuading the major distributors “to refuse to license the exhibition of their films in theatres of Its competitors, including the plain By BRAD ANGIER Boston — ^Introduction of exhibits and depositions continued last week to headline the hearing of the Morse and Rothenberg, A&W Amusement Company, $2,100,000 anti-trust suit against the major distributors and the Maine and New Hampshire Theatres Co. before Philip A. Hendrick, Master appointed by the local federal district court. Sessions continued to be held in the Federal Building. David Bernstein, Loew’s executive, seemed a bit hazy on the question of “protection.” “Is there a practice in the industry known as ‘protection,’ Mr. Bernstein?” George S. Ryan asked the vice-president and treasurer in the course of taking his deposition, testimony revealed. “Do you mean clearance?” Bernstein asked. “Let me ask you another,” Ryan retorted. “Have you head the word ‘protection’ used in the motion picture industry?” “I have heard the word used a number of times,” Bernstein said. “And have you seen that word in contracts?” Ryan inquired. Bernstein replied in the negative. “In no contracts, so far as you can recollect, have you ever seen the word ‘protection’?” Ryan asked. “No.” “Do you know what the term protection meant?” Ryan pressed. “I didn’t see it,” said Bernstein. “Well, have you heard it?” “Protection of what?” Bernstein wanted tiff’s theatre in said City of Rumford, sometimes by threats of refusal to deal with them.” (f) By so exercising “the right of selec tion or rejection” that films Maine and New Hampshire Theatres did not exhibit “were not made available for use by independent exhibitors until after the end of the playing season.” (g) By overbuying. (h) By negotiating franchises and deals in New York City, “as an integral part of the agreements of the powerful theatre chain of said Paramount Pictures, Inc.,” before any negotiations were entered into with independent exhibitors. to know. “Haven’t you heard the term protection used in the motion picture business?” queried Ryan. “I have used the term a number of times myself, in a number of different ways,” Bernstein said finally. “Whether it is against losses of different kinds — protection against losses — in many other ways — I don’t know what you mean.” “In connection with the selling of films, has there not been a word commonly used in the trade . . . ‘protection’?” Ryan ejaculated. “I am not familiar with it,” the Loew’s executive stated. Indirect Loew’s Interest in GB Bernstein admitted in another part of the testimony that he obtained “some information” as to the physical set up of Loew’s, Inc., from the trade papers. Bernstein said that Loew’s, Inc., does not own any part of the stock of GaumontBritish, nor does any Loew’s subsidiary. Upon further pressing by Ryan, Bernstein said that Loew’s, Inc., owns “stock in a company, which owns stock in another company that owns stocks in GaumontBritish.” The term “major producers” had never been heard by Bernstein, so he said. He also stated that he had never heard of the term “major distributors.” He said that he had been engaged in the motion picture business for more than 20 years. Boston Clearance Setup A letter from L. D. Netter, Paramount executive, to Martin J. Mullin, ‘M’ of the M&P Theatres Corp., was introduced as an exhibit. It touched in particular on the (Continued on page 61) George S. Ryan alleges that the Maine and New Hampshire Theatres Co. “has entirely eliminated the competition of independent exhibitors in every city and town in which the chain has theatres in the states of Maine and New Hempshire, except in Rumford, Maine, and in Concord and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. But even in these cities in recent years no independent exhibitor has been able to contract with or to secure the deal of an adequate supply of motion picture films of the said defendant distributors.” Edmund G. Pollard is seeking $100,000 triple damages against each of the nine defendants, a preliminary and final injunction to prevent continuance of the alleged monopoly, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. BOXOFFICE :: January 21, 1939 NE 59