Boxoffice-December.24.1949

Tenn. High Court Holds
'Curley' Ban Invalid
MEMPHIS—Cha'rman Lloyd T. Binford
and the Memphis Board of Censors had no
authority to ban from Memphis screens the
motion picture "Curley" because it showed
Negro actors in the cast, the supreme court
of Tennessee has held.
However, Tennessee's highest court threw
out the case attacking the right of Memphis
censors to ban exhibition of the picture on
grounds that the complainants, Hal Roach,
Inc., and United Artists Corp., were not motion
picture exhibitors. Not being exhibitors
—the supreme court held—the plaintiffs
were not denied freedom of speech and secondly
that they had no standing in Tennessee
courts because they are out-of-state corporations
and have not complied with the laws of
the state.
ENDS TWO-YEAR BATTLE
This decision, rendered at Nashville last
Saturday, brought to an end a two-year court
fight which followed the dec sion of the
Memphis censors that the film "Curley" could
not be shown in Memphis because it showed
white and Negro children playing together
and attending the same school.
The fight on censors was joined by the
Motion Picture Ass'n of America and charges
that the censors had violated the constitutional
rights of the producers and distributors
were made.
Binford had said "the South does not permit
Negroes in white schools nor recognize
social equality between the races, even among
children."
United Artists and the Roach studios had
argued that the private act in Tennessee
creating the censor board was unconstitutional
and that the board had no legal authority
to disapprove the picture because of
the presence of Negroes in the cast.
The abbreviated ruling of the supreme
court, read by Chief Justice A. B. Neil, follows:
"United Artists Corporation et al vs. Board
of Censors et al—Shelby Law, United Artists,
a Motion Picture distributor, and Hal Roach,
Inc., questioned the authority of the Board of
Censors of Memphis to ban the exhibition of
a picture, "Curley," on the ground that members
of the Negro race were among the actors
on the screen.
TWO CONTENTIONS ARE LISTED
"Contention is made (1) that the private
act creating the board is invalid as an abridgment
of 'freedom of speech' and (2) the board
was not legally authorized to disapprove the
picture.
"Held that appellants are not in position to
question the valid ty of the act, since there is
nothing to show that either of the appellants
is an exhibitor, and hence they are not denied
freedom of speech.
"Wh le the board had no authority to disapprove
the picture because of Negro actors
appearing in the picture, this contention being
correct as a sound proposition of law, yet
the appellants cannot maintain this suit because
as a foreign corporation it was doing
business in Tennessee without first complying
with the laws of the state."
The office of the secretary of state said
Binford Says No More
Racial Films Barred
MEMPHIS—Chairman Lloyd T. Binford,
who has attracted national attention
by banning from Memphis screens
motion pictures dealing with race relations,
said he would bar no more shows
for racial pictures.
"We'll just have to pass these pictures,"
Binford said. "Frankly, it was what I was
looking for, judging from President Truman's
recent actions."
Binford further said: "We would still
ban 'Lost Boundaries' on the grounds that
the leading character, a Negro passing as
a white, was an impostor and liar. The
people of his New Hampshire home town
resented him until the minister in the
film smoothed it over."
Binford said that the censor board's recent
approval of such films as "Home of
the Brave," "Pinky" and "Intruder in the
Dust," was influenced "by an inkling of
what the court's attitude probably would
be."
Just last weekend, the stage show, "A
Streetcar Named Desire," written by a former
Memphian, Tennessee Williams,
played three times at Ellis Auditorium
without censorship changes.
"If it had been a movie, attracting an
audience of children, it would not have
been passed," B nford said. "But the audience
was 98 per cent adult and knew what
it was getting."
Binford and the attorneys for the city
and county who defended the "Curley"
suit made it plain there would be no
change on Memphis censorship so far as
immorality, lewdness and general undesirability
were concerned.
United Artists had not registered in Tennessee
and that the state law requires an out-ofstate
corporation wishing to do business in
the state to file a copy of its charter, pay a
$300 fee and to appoint an agent for service
of process.
Memphis' legal staff represented the censors
when the case was filed in Circuit Judge
Henderson's court in Memphis. Judge Henderson
ruled that United Artists and the
Roach studios had no legal standing in Tennessee
courts.
Blevins Comic Xmas Card
Credited to Tom Little
NASHVILLE, TENN.—The Blevms Popcorn
Co.'s annual comic Christmas card mailed
each December to the firm's customers and
friends all over the country was done this
year by Tom Little, Jim Blevins has announced
here.
Little is the Nashville Tennessean's political
cartoonist, and is also creator of the syndicated
cartoon feature, "Sunflower Street."
GOLDWYN PLAYS SANTA
Under the huge 40-foot Christmas tree
erected by Samuel Goldwyn in the foyer
of the United Artists Theatre in downtown
Los Angeles, Pat DeCicco, operating
head of the United Artists Theatres
in California, and Producer Goldwyn
(dressed as Santa Glaus) are shown handing
out gifts to underprivileged children
of Los Angeles. This is part of the twoday
Christmas gift party held at the
United Artists Theatre on December 23,
24 by Goldwyn in conjunction with the
showing of his recent picture, "My Foolish
Heart," starring Dana Andrews and
Susan Hayward. The film wiU be internationally
premiered at the Four Star
and United Artists theatres in Los Angeles
on Christmas day.
Checking Action Settled
With 21 Exhibitors
PITTSBURGH—Out of court settlements
have been made by all local area independent
exhibitors involved, except one, in the
alleged irregular or false checking civil action
in federal court here. This is the statement
of a leading theatre owner, who announced
"a satisfactory settlement" in the
litigation (3052) also listed as Morris Roth
et al vs. Paramount et al. Twenty-three exhibitors,
according to th's spokesman, have
concluded and have settled accounts.
Bart Dattola, New Kensington, dismissed
attorneys representing the 41 theatres in the
action, and engaged Margiotti and Casey, as
reported here.
The Roth et al action was entered by exhibitors
to prevent "a fishing expedition into
the theatres' books and records" by attorneys
representing film distributors. Their
proposal backfired. Pox six years the action
was moving in the western district court here
holding the attention of three consecutive
federal court judges. Sargoy and Stein, New
York law firm, was counsel for the film distributors,
and attorneys for the exhibitors
were J. Roy Dickie and Nathan M. Katz,
Pittsburgh.
The New Kensington theatre owner, who
has refused to budge, has nothing to report
for publication. No other exhibitor involved
has volunteered any information on the announced
settlements. Branch managers of
film companies here have no knowledge of
the civil action or its disposal.
16
BOXOFFICE December 24, 1949