We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
12
imposed upon by him and also that there had been a breach of the condition subsequent as to the control of the company contained in the collateral agreement of September 18th, 1908, and further that the Motion Picture Patents Company would not grant a license to the George Melies Company without further investigation or until the matter had been satisfactorily adjusted (Dyer, 340; Selig, p. 297, lines 12-15).
The evidence further shows that the other Edison manufacturing licensees, all of whom were present at this meeting, protested against the issuance of a further license to the complainant on the ground that their consent to the transfer of the two Edison licenses of January 31st, 19U8, had been procured by false and fraudulent representations on the part of Lodge, and tiiat they were opposed to the giving of such a license until the matter was adjusted to their satisfaction (Smith, p. 401; Blackton, p. 397; Dyer, p. 340; Selig, p. 297; Spoor, p. 276). It should be noted here that these licensees were directly interested in the granting of such a license because under the terms of the license agreement of January 31st, 1908 (see paragraph 20, Schedule "A" attached to the bill) no license could be granted without the consent of a majority vote. All the foregoing facts are abundantly proved by the testimony of Mr. Dyer, corroborated by the testimony of six other persons who were present at this meeting. (Dyer, p. 339 et seq.; Spoor, p. 276 et seq.; Marion, p. 394 seq.; Selig, p. 295 et seq.; Blackton, p. 396 et seq.; Smith, p. 400 et seq.; Kennedy, p. 390 et seq.)
The evidence further shows that following this meeting of December 18th, 1908, and early in the month of January, 1909, Mr. Lodge, representing the complainant, opened negotiations with Mr. Dyer, representing the Patents Coujpany and the Edison Company, looking to an adjustment of this difficulty, that a veibal understanding was reached between them, having for its object the granting of a license upon conditions which would assure the control of the Meliert Company in the hands of Messrs. Carter, Lodge and tlie Melies', as originally contemplated at the time the licenses were signed and thus eliminate Max Lewis in the Company; but that these ne