Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

Record Details:

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.

INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN' 3 EVENTS on the MARCH/ "Reporting the Industry's News from An Editorial Viewpoint" JUDGE MOORE DISQUALIFIED EN ST. LOUIS EQUITY CASE Gov't To Pursue St. L. Equity Action Undismayed . . . Surprised, but undismayed, by the surprising swift setback handed them by the jury in the criminal action against Harry Warner, Ned E. Depinet, Gradwell Sears, Herman Starr and George J. Schaefer, Department of Justice officials indicate that they will proceed with renewed vigor to prosecute the equity case against the three producing-distributing companies involved in the litigation. Utilizing the voluminous 1,000,000-wcrd transcript of testimony offered in the action against the five executives, the Government expects to have its injunction plea heard within one month. This will seek to compel the film companies to sell first-run product to the three Fanchon and Marco theatres, which are allegedly being "squeezed out" of business because Warners were defeated in their efforts to obtain control of them. Hard Case . . . The brilliant defense attorneys wisely insisted that the criminal action be heard first, knowing that this type of case is one of the most difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a jury. For a few hours, as Federal Judge George H. Moore delivered his instructions to the jury last Monday, it appeared that the lawyers for the film men were mistaken. The jurist made remarks that clearly demonstrated his belief that the defendants were guilty. Numerous exceptions were taken by defense counsel and Frederick H. Wood, one of Warner's attorneys, subsequently paid a #100 contempt fine inflicted by the Court for his remark that part of the Judge's speech resembled "a stump speech." Rut. in thirty-eight minutes after the) left injury box for their deliberations, ili< jury r> turned with a verdict of "not guilty." Moore Disqualified . . . The following day when the Government asked the Court to set a date for the hearing of the equity case, William A. Gentry, for defense counsel, filed an application to replace Judge Moore in this action. It was charged that the jurist showed bias and thereby disqualified himself from hearing another case against the same defendants. Appointment of another Federal Judge is being awaited. The Department of Justice apparently feels that the equity case will prove considerably easier to establish in convincing manner and that the personal element will not interfere, as they think it did in the criminal action. Other Cases . . . Meanwhile, reports from Washington state that Department officials are determined to force a cleanup of major film company policies. Various other complaints which poured into the D. of J. offices within the past year are being studied and action on them considered. Next time they go after the big film powers a more airtight case will undoubtedly be planned in advance. Such a case would be directed strictly against the companies and not against the men who operate them. Phila. Exhib Groups Talk Merger Again MPTO-IEPA . . . Latent for about six month', talk about a possible merger between the two exhibitor organizations in the Eastern Pennsylvania territory has been revived and may culminate successfully this time. Concerned are the IEPA and MPTO unit. Previous attempts to have the two bodies join under one title proved unsuccessful. largely because tin MPTO would not sever its membership affiliation with Warner !ii>>-. [Theatres. One of the principal provisions of the IEPA by-laws bars inclusion of any affiliated theatres in the group. It is reported that committees from the two organizations are scheduled to meet this week in another effort to iron out the differences. Observers assume that the MPTO has reached some satisfactory solution of the affiliated theatre problem and will present this to Independent Exhibitors' body. Exhib Sues Fox For 20th Century Croup Bought All Fox . . . The right of 20th Century-Fox to sell their so-called "20th Century" group of pictures away from an exhibitor who had previously contracted for the entire Fox product, is being tested in a Minneapolis law court. On behalf of the Berger Amusement Company, circuit operating about seven houses throughout Minnesota and North Dakota, S. Halpern has filed an action in Federal Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the film company to deliver the 20th Century pictures to one of the circuit's houses. Basis for the action is contract signed by Berger with Fox before the merger with Century took place, and which provided that the exhibitor was to get all the pictures released by Fox. CI aim of 20th Century-Fox that the special group made by Zanuck is apart from the regular Fox releases is answered by the plaintiff, who argues that 20 th Century pictures are owned by Fox and are being released by them. FOR ADDITIONAL EVENTS ON THE MARCH" ITEMS, PLEASE SEE PACE 8 BENJAMIN COLDER Prominent Philadelphia attorney, who filed answering brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals in the double feature case. Decision expected about the middle of December. Producers may take the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, if lower court ruling against them is upheld.