School of Speedwriting v. Feener Business Schools, Civ. A. No. 52-667.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1956
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 52-667.
• Citation: 139 F. Supp. 110
• Parties: SCHOOL OF SPEEDWRITING, Inc. v. FEENER BUSINESS SCHOOLS, Inc. and Carleton L. Feener.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

139 F. Supp. 110

SCHOOL OF SPEEDWRITING, Inc. v. FEENER BUSINESS SCHOOLS, Inc. and Carleton L. Feener.

Civ. A. No. 52-667.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

February 17, 1956.

Order Affirmed June 15, 1956.

Samuel P. Sears and Lawrence R. Cohen, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

John R. Ambrogne, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

Order Affirmed June 15, 1956. See 234 F.2d 1.

WYZANSKI, District Judge. (delivered orally from the bench at the conclusion of the evidence).

This case comes before me upon three motions, the first two being motions by the plaintiff, one for contempt against the corporation and the individual defendant, the other being for modification of a final decree entered by this Court on July 20, 1954 and subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 220 F.2d 747. Defendant's motion is for modification of the same decree.

Evidence was taken in open court today and testimony was heard from Margaret I. Feener, the clerk of the corporate defendant and the wife of the individual defendant, who, according to her testimony, is sick at home, the nature of the sickness not being revealed nor supported by any medical affidavit. Other testimony included the evidence given by Dr. Alexander Scheff, President of the plaintiff corporation, two of his counsel, George Blake, Esq., of New York, and Lawrence R. Cohen, Esq., of Boston, and Miss Cynthia Albert, who serves as a secretary-stenographer in Mr. Cohen's office.

From Exhibit 1-A, B and C it appeared that on recent date there have been inserted in Boston newspapers of general circulation advertisements of the defendant corporation, which according to Mrs. Feener, were representative of the defendant's advertisements. In these advertisements it is quite clear that the word Speedwriting is commonly emphasized by a black or heavier type, but it is also accompanied in the course of the advertisement by the statement that "The course of resident instruction in speed writing being offered by the school employs and refers to books and other material published by `The School of Speedwriting.'"

Upon taking the stand Mrs. Feener made it quite plain that at no time since the original decree was entered by this Court has any student of the defendant corporation in fact been given a course in Speedwriting. The defendant corporation does not have on hand any manuals or books for the teaching of Speedwriting. The defendant corporation has not even as yet determined whether if a student did enroll in such a course the manuals would be supplied under the general charge for the course or would be separately priced. Moreover, on the testimony given by Dr. Scheff, who made a diligent examination of book stores in Cambridge and in Boston, it appears that there are not available in the metropolitan community of Boston, at least on short notice, copies of the manuals and books which are published by the School of Speedwriting, Inc., and which are the kind of books essential if a genuine course in Speedwriting is to be given.

On January 24, 1956, following telephone calls to someone, perhaps a receptionist, at the defendant corporation's place of business, Miss Albert appeared on the premises of the defendant corporation at 12 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, and while there she saw Mrs. Feener. Both persons recall the interview. Both agree that during the course of the conversation there was a discussion both of the ABC writing system and the...