In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

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.

Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 213 accept notes? A. I cannot tell that. I can only find out by communicating with the various manufacturers. It was a common complaint. Q. The next sentence is: "These notes were not paid." Are you able to give any definite information on that point, or should that sentence also be modified to read: "Some of these notes were not paid?'' A. I would not say as to that, as I had personally nothing to do with the collection of these notes. Q. Did you make any inquiry before you signed this answer containing these statements? A. I know from the general discussion of the matter by manufacturers that such conditions commonly existed. Q,. Now, when you issued your licenses in February, 1909, you have stated in your answer the licenses were issued to the responsible exchanges. That part of the answer I call to your attention. It is at the bottom of page 47, and the top of page 18. Do you mean to say that these companies thereafter became irresponsible, the larger proportion of them? A. In some cases they did become irresponsible or we discovered later that they were not responsible. Q. The exchanges which you issued licenses to were required to take not less than $2,500 worth of film every month. Is that not correct? A. That is correct. Q. And those to which you issued licenses were those which were able to take that amount? A. It was supposed they were able to take that amount. Q. The next sentence: "The manufacturers and importers were compelled to discontinue the shipment of films, and brought suits to recover payment for films already shipped.'' Now, was that the common practice? Were they as a matter of fact compelled in most cases to discontinue the shipment of films and to bring suits to recover payment A. I would not say that they were compelled to do that in most cases, but they were in many cases. Q. In the same paragraph : "Frequently these exchanges became bankrupt, involving the manufacturers in losses/' Are you able to state how many of these exchanges became bankrupt? A. I cannot state that offhand. Q. Of the 116? A. I cannot state that offhand. Q. It was a very small proportion, was it not? A. I would not be willing to say that without looking it up. T had no direct connection with the leasing of the films.