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.
26
or sale of films for moving pictures be allowed or permitted to hold stock in said corporation, in so far as it lies in the power of the parties hereto to prevent same."
According to Mr. Dyer, before Lodge was called over from Chicago, Melies made plain his own understanding of the matter (p. 336).
Again, in the subsequent abortive negotiations, January 5, between Lodge and Dyer for a license, in Dyer's estimation "The most important thing was that the stock of the George Melies Company should be so placed that there would be no chance of its being sold around to exchanges, as they attempted to do " * * * (p. 364). And to insure specifically against a repetition of the objectionable acts, the letter embodying their understanding of January 5 provided that all the stock of the Melies Company was to be put in trust, " so that the stock cannot be sold or alienated," and that "The Melies Company will also agree during the continuance of the license not to change its personnel, the idea being, as I have told you several times, to prevent outside interests from associating themselves with the manufacturing business " (pp. 663, 664).
When Melies returned f rom abroad, January 3, 1909, Lodge met him at quarantine. The position taken by the defendants was clear enough in Lodge's mind then (if not when he testified).
(Melies, pp. 421 and 423.) " He told me that the Motion Picture Patents Company and the other licensees from that Motion Picture Patents Company objected to Mr. Max Lewis being a shareholder or a stockholder in that Company." * * * " Mr. Lodge told me that the objections were against Max Lewis because Max Lewis was not the man that the manufacturers should like to have with them, mid that Mr. Dyer having objected to the sale of the shares to exchanges and Mr. Max Lewis was one of them.'^
Selig throws another side-light on what Lodge must have understood when at the meeting of December 18 he reminded Mr. Lodge of what Mr. Lodge had told him in