Hygienic Prod.s Inc. v. Keenan

• Decision Date: 22 October 1948
• Citation: 62 A.2d 150
• Parties: HYGIENIC PRODUCTIONS, Inc., et al. v. KEENAN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

62 A.2d 150

HYGIENIC PRODUCTIONS, Inc., et al.

v.KEENAN et al.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Oct. 22, 1948.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It is not the province or function of the court to censor motion pictures, or any accompanying lecture or the auspices under which presented. If, as defendants argue, the presentation of the film in question would not be objectionable if conducted under non-commercial auspices, it is not within their power to revoke a theater license if the same film is shown under commercial auspices.

2. The affidavits submitted by the defendants show that the film is not immoral or obscene. The sole basis for objection to the exhibition of the film by plaintiffs is that it is being exhibited under commercial auspices, rather than under educational, medical, or social welfare supervision. Held, the defendant Director of Public Safety has no authority to interfere with the presentation of the film under the facts presented and the law applicable.

Suit by Hygienic Productions, Incorporated, and Rayhertz Amusement Corporation, against John B. Keenan and the City of Newark, to restrain defendants from carrying out their threat to revoke the license of the Broad Street Theatre, owned by plaintiff Rayhertz Amusement Corporation, if it presented certain motion picture. On plaintiffs' application for preliminary restraint.

Application granted.

Hannoch & Lasser and Aaron Lasser, both of Newark, for plaintiffs.

George B. Astley, of Newark, for defendants.

FREUND, Judge.

The plaintiffs made application for a preliminary restraint. This matter comes on to be heard after notice to the defendants, the submission by them of answering affidavits, and argument.

There appears to be no dispute as to the material facts. The Director of Public Safety of the City of Newark has threatened to revoke the license of the Broad Street Theatre if it presents a motion picture film entitled ‘Mom and Dad.’ The license for the operation of the theatre is held by Rayhertz Amusment Corporation, a plaintiff, and the owner and exhibitor of the moving picture film is the plaintiff, Hygienic Productions, Inc. The proposed presentation and exhibition of the picture at the theatre is pursuant to a contract entered into between the plaintiffs.

On October 9, 1948, the plaintiffs, in accordance with practice and for the purpose of advertising the picture, held a preview to which were invited representatives of the City of Newark. The number of persons attending this performance is differently estimated, plaintiffs claiming that 140 persons attended while the defendants' affidavits give the the number as 70.

I have read the affidavits submitted by the defendants. Beside the affidavit of defendant John B. Keenan, Commissioner of Public Safety, who did not attend the performance, there are eight affidavits of persons who did attend, five by women affiliated with various organizations, and the remaining three by officials of the Police Department-an acting policewoman, a Captain and a Lieutenant.

The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit, attached to which were photostatic copies of 281 letters from clergymen, educators, public officials, scout leaders and other persons who viewed the picture in other communities. Attached also to the affidavit were photostatic copies of 80 forms which were supplied to guests who attended the performance on October 9th, on which they had indicated their comments on the picture. In addition depositions of the defendant, John B. Keenan, were taken before me yesterday on notice by the plaintiffs.

The significant factor to be gleaned from the affidavits submitted by the defendants is that it is not charged that the film is immoral, or obscene; the sole basis for objection to the exhibition of the film is that it is being exhibited under commercial auspices. None of the affidavits goes so far as to say that the film should not be exhibited at all. Four of them state expressly, and...