Millinocket Theatre v. Kurson
| Decision Date | 15 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 12.,12. |
| Parties | MILLINOCKET THEATRE, Inc., v. KURSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
George S. Ryan, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Abraham Rudman, Atty. at Law, and Fellows & Fellows, all of Bangor, Me., and Perkins, Weeks & Hutchins, of Waterville, Me., for defendants.
This matter comes before the court on a petition to adjudge the defendant, Samuel Kurson, in contempt of court for the destruction of certain records and documents alleged by the plaintiff, the petitioner, to be material evidence in the above-entitled civil action brought to recover treble damages for violations of the Anti-Trust law, in which action evidence has recently been taken out before a master. The petitioner asks for punishment as for criminal contempt under the authority of U.S.C.A. Title 28, § 385, and rests its case on certain quotations attached to the petition, from the deposition of Kurson taken by the petitioner in Boston in December, 1940, from which it appears that Kurson's secretary, with his consent, destroyed many records and papers relating to the Kurson moving-picture business about October, 1940, prior to moving the Kurson office from Bangor to Boston. The moving-picture business of Kurson is involved in the controversy. This petition was filed June 5, 1941.
Kurson's attorneys had been notified in writing by the plaintiff on or about October 21, 1940, of an intention to take Kurson's deposition on November 13, 1940, in Bangor. This deposition was not taken at Bangor as the defendant moved to Boston in October, the deposition being taken there later. Kurson denies that any papers were destroyed in his office after he received the notice of the taking of the deposition but knew of course that the action was pending and was familiar with the claims of the plaintiff. The secretary of Kurson who did the work of destruction testified that it was part of a regular routine whereby records that had accumulated for two years were periodically destroyed and that only records prior to 1938 were destroyed on that occasion. Generally speaking, Kurson claims that the destruction of the papers was routine, without reference to their possible use in this suit. The plaintiff on the other hand claims that Kurson had in mind that these papers contained evidence that could be used to his disadvantage in this suit and that they were destroyed to avoid that effect. It seems to me unnecessary to determine that point, upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Presentment by Grand Jury of Ellison, 44.
...Wimberly v. United States, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 713; Warring v. Colpoys, App.D.C., 122 F.2d 642, 136 A.L.R. 1025; Millinocket Theatre, Inc., v. Kurson et al., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 979. Each of these cases involved misbehavior which took place at a considerable distance from the court — in one case ......
-
United States v. Rees
...1941) at p. 644; Wimberly v. U. S., 119 F.2d 713 (C.C.A.5, 1941); Schmidt v. U. S., 124 F.2d 177 (C.C.A. 6, 1941); Millinocket Theatre v. Kurson, 39 F.Supp. 979 (D.Me.1941). Cammer v. U. S., 350 U.S. 399 (1952) is a very recent indication that the Supreme Court has no intention of modifying......
- Katz Underwear Co. v. United States, Civil Action No. 434.