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.
Pua 4 oe
chasing on open account whereas the independents usually, so it ig contended, were obliged to pay C.0.D. Further that the only class E. members of Motion Pictures Distributors and Exhibitors Association were connected with Famous Players, and it is suggested that body was to a great extent controlled by it and hence, as I understand it, that the Standard Form of Contract in all three forms which it took in different years was really the result of a scheme on the part of all the accused to impose upon the exhibitor onerous terms as to arbitration and other matters and SO make it difficult for him to carry on, cause him to fail in the performance of his contracts, become involved in arbitrations, be required to furnish security not only by his immediate creditor but by all others with whom he had contracts, and ultimately become discouraged and leave the field to Famous Players and its associates.
That in a few words is the substance of the contention, and the genesis of the argument is, I think, to be found in some decisions of United States Courts much relied upon by the Crown in which the Standard Contract and the Arbitration Clauses and Credit Rules, etc., as they are known in the United States, and they are practically the same as those in use here, were very fully discussed.
These authorities are Paramount v. United States, 51 S.C. Reporter (1930) 42; United States v. First National Ibid. p. 45 and Majestic v. United States, Fed. Rep. 2nd Series vol. 43, p. 991.
These authorities are not binding upon me of course, but I have read them carefully since they are the only decisions referred to in the argument relating to the Moving Picture Industry. They were all I think decisions under the Sherman Anti Trust law and for that reason I think are quite distinguishable from the present case. Lord Parker said in Att. General v. Adelaide S.S. Co., 1913 A.C. at p. 801:
“The Sherman Act construed strictly makes every contract or Combination in the restraint of trade and every monopoly or attempt to monopolize a statutory misdemeanor irrespective of any sinister intention on the part of the accused and irrespective of any detriment to the public.”
Our statute is broad enough in its terms,—I refer to the Combines Act, but an essential requirement as to all combines within the Act is that they operate or tend to operate to the detriment of the Public whether consumers, producers or others. .
In the first of the authorities mentioned from the United States Reports that of Paramount y. United States, the Court there held
Al