Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York : The Evening Post Job Printing Office
Volume:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Leaf #:
00026
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 16, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

22 Mr. Von Ronkel, of the American Film Service, states that Lodge and Lewis called upon them; that he asked to see the film, as they never bought anything without seeing it, and did not want to " buy a pig in a poke," but that Lewis refused to show them the picture (Von Ronkel, p. 311). In this he is corroborated by his partner, Mr. Auerbach, President of the American Film Service, who was present during the whole interview (pp. 321, 322). Mr. Hopp, of the Standard Film Exchange, also flatly contradicts the testimony of Carter and Lodge on this point (p. 317). Complainants undertook to prove also by Carl Laemmle that they could not transact business without a license from the Patents Company. They utterly failed to elicit any such proof from the witness, who testified on crossexamination that he had formerly held a license from the Patents Company which he gave up voluntarily and found that he transacted just as large a business by dealing with the independents as with the licensed manufacturers and that he found no difficulty in getting all the pictures that he wanted (pp. 112, 113). In order to deal immediately with the merits of the case, we pass, for the moment, appellant's First Point. The Court will find the questions there raised fully answered in our Point IL