Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1930)

Page scan 000801 from Exhibitors Herald World

Record Details:

Title:
Exhibitors Herald World
Date:
Oct-Dec 1930
Publisher:
[Chicago, Quigley publishing company]
Volume:
Exhibitors herald world
Leaf #:
000801
Language:
English
Subjects:
motion pictures, Motion pictures -- Periodicals
Collection:
Early Cinema and Hollywood Studio System
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
Library of Congress, MBRS, Moving Image Section
Sponsor:
Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Founded in 1915 by a Chicago printing company as a regional trade paper for Midwest exhibitors. In 1916, editor Martin Quigley bought out the owners, and over the next 15 years, he grew EXHIBITORS HERALD into one of the most important national, weekly trade papers in the film business. Quigley acquired MOTOGRAPHY in 1917 and MOVING PICTURE WORLD in 1927. In 1930, he acquired MOTION PICTURE NEWS and the new 'consolidated' publication became MOTION PICTURE HERALD. From the pulpit of his editorial page, Quigley preached the need to improve the motion picture industry and improve the quality of the films. He skillfully served as a mediator in disputes -- between distributors and exhibitors, between the film industry and the Catholic Church (Quigley was one of the architects of the Production Code). Quigley claimed that EXHIBITORS HERALD represented the 'independent exhibitor' and sections like 'What the Picture Did for Me?' certainly provided a forum for theater owners. But plenty of exhibitors viewed Quigley as a servant to the studios and large theater chains. In response, publications such as SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN, HARRISON'S REPORTS, and BOX OFFICE were either formed or grew significantly in the years following Quigley's brief moment of consolidation in 1930. -- Eric Hoyt, 2014
Date Added:
July 25, 2024
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.

November 22,1930 Exhibitors Herald-World 57 guilty of a criminal act, because he ha^ committed a crime similar to this at another time. In other words, evidence that a person committed a crime at a particular time is not admissable to show that another crime was committed at another time, unless the two facts or occurrences are connected in some special way. This rule of the law is applicable in all cases involving trial of a person charged with a criminal act. An example of this phase of the law is supplied by the recent case of Prymek v. Herink (289 Pac. 412). In this case it was shown that a person accused of arson confessed to burning a dance hall. Soon afterward a theatre building was burned and the same party was accused of this crime. However, the court refused to admit testimony relating to the confession of the previous crime, stating the following important law: "Other similar acts may be shown when the evidence of malice is material, or when a course of conduct or dealing is in question, or in certain instances when a question of habit or custom is involved, or in a criminal case to show motive. . . . Here the similar acts sought to be shown were many months later than that which formed the basis of the action on trial. ... It is sufficient to say it is not admissable under the general rule." Injury to Third Party Generally speaking, where a theatre owner, or amusement company, employs a general contractor to perform work on the theatre, the theatre owner is liable for injuries to the contractor's employes, if any control of the workmen is exercised by the theatre owner. For illustration, in Fair Park Amusement Co. v. Kimbrough (129 So. 275), an amusement company employed a contractor, who hired a workman named Kimbrough to perform the work. The company reserved the right to direct and control the workman in the performance of his work. Also, Kimbrough was paid daily wages by the amusement company. He was injured while working and the amusement company attempted to avoid liability on the grounds that the employe was employed by the contractor. However, the court held the amusement company liable, saying : "These are the essentials of the common-law relation of master and servant, and the evidence is without dispute that the workman was paid a daily wage for his services." Liability in Assault A theatre owner who intentionally and maliciously inflicts bodily injuries on his employe occupies no better position than would a third party and when sued at law for damages he cannot plead either that the injury was accidental or that it arose out of the employment. By committing a felonious assault upon an employe the employer willfully severs the legal relation of master and servant and im-til Shows to Show Profit Your show may be an act of vaudeville or a complete presentation— but the public will come oftener and like it better if you have an @ Major System of Lighting Control. Send for full particulars. &rank c/Ldam ELECTRIC COMPANY ST. LOUIS Offices in all Principal Cities