Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 193 6 5 EVENTS on the MARCH ! (f Reporting the Industry's News from An Editorial Viewpoint" GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE FILM OFFICIALS IN NEW TRIAL GOVERNMENT ASKS DISMISSAL OF ST. LOUIS CASE; SEEKS NEW TRIAL SURPRISE . . . St. Louis. — In a sudden surprise move on Tues., special Government prosecutor Russell Hardy requested Federal Judge Joseph W. Molyneaux to dismiss the equity suit in progress against Warner Bros., RKO, and Paramount to permit the Department of Justice to file a new case in which the implicated executives of the defendant companies may be included. The judge indicated that he would grant the motion today (Wed.) by his remark, in answer to defense counsel's objections, "I am of the opinion that they have an absolute right to dismiss, but, of course, I will hear you." Hardy's startling motion came after Government counsel had seen their case virtually being tossed into discard by the Court's refusal to admit vital testimony from key witnesses. When the all-important conversations which Harry C. Arthur, vice-pres. of Fanchon & Marco, is alleged to have had with certain film executives of the three distributing companies were ordered stricken from the record. Hardy and his associates apparently came to the conclusion that they did not have a chance. DEFENSE SCORES . . . This ban on Arthur's testimony was the last straw in a series of reverses which had upset the Government's case during the four or five days preceding. The defense attorneys had employed every legal strategem to bar evidence gathered in conversations between Government witnesses and officials of the defendant companies. Last Friday, testimony of conversations involving Adolph Zukor were declared inadmissable when counsel for Paramount claimed that Zukor was not authorized to act or bind the company, inasmuch as it was then in receivership. Attempts of the Government to introduce the business records of the theatres operated by F. & M. to show that they lost money because of Warners alleged campaign against them proved unsuccessful when defense counsel claimed that the evidence was not admissable. A conversation between a Government witness and Jules Levy, RKO official, was not allowed to remain in the record because RKO's attorney, Jacob M. Lashy, protested that Levy was not speaking in any official capacity. ALLIED DIRECTORS MEET TUES. WED. PROBLEMS . . . Directors of national Allied States Ass'n meet in Washington Tuesday and Wednesday, February 4-5, to shape the organization's policies for this year. Many problems face the body, chief among which are: (1) Course to be taken in support of the Pettengill-Neely bill to abolish compulsory block booking; (2) possible revision of the Duffy copyright bill, to put stronger teeth into it; (3) election of officers. MAJORS MAY DELAY EFFECT OF DUALS VERDICT SEVERAL MONTHS BY ASKING REHEARING OF CASE BY CIRCUIT COURT THOROUGH . . . Not overlooking any possibility for reversing the decisions of the U. S. District Court and the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the double feature issue, counsel for the major film companies, defendants in the Perelman case, are planning to take advantage of every legal avenue for delay open to them. Morris Wolf, chief of defense counsel, has stated that he will petition the Circuit Court for a re-hearing of the case. 3 0 days following the handing down of the appeal opinion is allowed for filing of a request for re-hearing. From two to four weeks is usually required by the Court for consideration of such petitions. SUPREME COURT NEXT . . . Little hope is held out by observers for favorable action by the Circuit Court on the defense's petition in this case. The opinion was conclusively against the film companies and there seems to be hardly any basis for the request, except as a dilatory move. If the petition is denied, the next step is toward the U. S. Supreme Court. The defendants will have ninety days from the date of the Circuit Court's action on their appeal for re-hearing in which to file with the nation's highest tribunal for a writ of certiorari. If a writ were to be granted them, the case would be argued before the nine justices in the capitol. CHANCES SLIM . . . However, legalists say they would not gamble on the majors' chances of winning a certiorari writ from the Supreme Court in the face of the strong adverse decisions delivered by both lower Federal Courts. While these legal moves are being played by the attorneys for the film companies, the dual bill status remains unchanged. The clauses barring double featuring in major film contracts have not been affected, inasmuch as the defendants have been granted a stay of mandate pending the outcome of their appeal efforts. The distributors are expected to show leniency in application of the clauses, however, in the interim.