Evening star., 1962-01-22
BY MIRIAM GUTENBERG
Star Staff Writer

|. Court to review a District Court
: decision which held that the
distributors had violated anti
, trust laws through block book
! ! ing but refused to go as far as
! the Government wanted in pre-
venting future package deals.
Ruling Challenged
The Government objected
particularly to the lower courts
refusal to halt a specific prac-
tice aired during the long trial
Of the case.
The Government presented
testimony that when a TV sta
tion manager asked to split a
package of films, and agents
for the distributor said that
could not be done "at this time"
because the distributor wanted
to try to sell the whole pack
age to a competing firm. Since
the station didn't want to run
the risks Of its competitor get
ting the good films, it agreed
to take the whole package. The
court held that this transac-
tion was not unlawful because
the refusal to split the package
was only temporary and was
made to explore the market
rather than to force the sale
Of unwanted films.
The distributors objected to
the courts finding of antitrust
violations and its order en-
joining them from condition.
ing the use Of any film or the
use Of any other film.
The distributors who sought
high court review were Loew's
Inc; Screen Gems, Inc; As
sociated Artists Productions
Inc; United Artist Corp. and
c & c Super Corp.
Other Actions Taken
The high court took these
other actions today:
SENTENCING-In a 5 to 4
decision the court held that a
judges failure to ask the &C
cused if he had anything to say
before sentencing was not a
serious enough error to make
the sentence illegal.
The sentence was challenged
by James Francis Hill, who was
given 23-year prison term for
kidnapping and car theft.
Justice Stewart said in the
majority opinion the only ques-
ton at issue was whether the
District Courts failure to offer
the defendant a chance to speak
was sufficient ground to war
rant an attack on the sentence.
He wrote that the error was
not so fundamental as to result
in a comlete miscarriage of
justice or violate Hills constitu-
tional rights. He noted that
there was no claim that Hill
would have had anything to say
if he had been formally invited
to speak.
Black Writes Dissent
The dissenters, Chief Justice
Warren and Justices Black,
Douglas and Brennan, called
the majority's finding a "be-
grudging Interpretation" of the
Federal rule which provides
for a correction Of an illegal
sentence"
Writing for the dissenters,
Justice Black said he would
have reversed the case and sent
it back to District Court to re-
sentence Hill after granting
him his right to speak.
4 LOYALTY OATH-The court
refused to take a second look
at the loyalty oath required of
public employees by the State
of Washington.
The issue was first raised In
the high court in 1859 by two
University of Washington pro-
fessors who claimed the Wash
ington law requiring non-suh-
versive oathS violated State and
Federal Constitutions.
The high court sent the case
back to the Washington
Supreme Court to determine
whether the law granted a
hearing to the professors.
The Washington Supreme
Court held that the professors,
If they refused to sign the
loyalty oath, would be entitled
to a hearing before discharge
under the rules of the Univer-
sity.
In the appeal considered to-
day. the professors, Howard l..
Nostrand and Max Savelle,
asked the high court to rule on
the constitutionality of the law.
The court dismissed the ap-
peal for lack of a substantial
Federal question. Justic Doug
las and Justice Black dissented
from the dismissal because the
court did not answer the con-
rstitutional questions raised.