I recall driving around this area immediately following the riots, but I don’t remember seeing the theater. It looks like it was demolished shortly thereafter.
Here is an item dated 12/20/56 from the Anderson Herald:
INDIANAPOLIS (UP) â€" The Esquire Theater Wednesday announced it will not show the controversial movie “Baby Doll”, the picture recently denounced by Francis Cardinal Spellman as “immoral.” The management of the theater said it has cancelled the movie, scheduled to open next Wednesday. No other bookings have been made here.
A spokesman for the theater said the cancellation resulted from a difference of opinion with Warner Bros., distributors of the film. He said the controversy was over “conditions under which the picture would playâ€.
If you look at the comment on June 14, 2005, it is mentioned that the Park may have been demolished for apartments. The current view on Google shows no building like the Park but does show a very large apartment building at that address. Any local confirmation would be helpful.
This is the website for the current occupant. My suggestion would be community center for the function. The building is still standing, although much of the ornamentation in the 1930 photo is gone. http://www.journeyhouse.org/index.php
March 23, 1917, plaintiff had judgment against defendants by confession for $3,759.72 and costs. The defense set up in the affidavit is that defendants on February 13, 1917, operated the Rosewood theatre as a moving picture house; that when they purchased the theatre it was supplied with a pipe-organ orchestra of plaintiff’s manufacture; that it did not give satisfaction and that plaintiff represented that it could not be made to give satisfaction because of its location in the theatre; that thereupon the plaintiff sold to the defendants one pipe-organ orchestra, style “V,” for $5,500, and warranted that it would give satisfaction; that $1,510 was paid on account of the purchase price at the time and the balance of the purchase price was the note in judgment; that the organ did not give satisfaction in that it failed to keep in tune; that the various pipes and stops were so constructed as to create sounds which were displeasing to all who heard them; that defendants notified plaintiff of the defects, which it attempted to correct, but failed in doing so; that by reason of such defects the organ was of no value to defendants, who notified plaintiff to remove it, which plaintiff refused to do, whereupon defendants removed it and placed it in storage for plaintiff’s account, sending the warehouse receipt therefor to it; that a consideration for said $3,900 note on which judgment had been confessed had wholly failed. A chattel mortgage was given upon the organ to secure the note, and it appears that after the organ was stored plaintiff sold it under the chattel mortgage and that it brought $1,044. On a trial before court and jury there was a verdict and judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiff brings the record here by this appeal for review.
There was an abundance of evidence from which the jury might properly find that the style “V” organ which defendants bought of plaintiff for their moving picture theatre was wholly unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was purchased and entirely worthless to defendants in their moving picture business in which it was to be used, and that plaintiff knew the purpose for which the organ was to be used and, so knowing, installed it in defendants' Rosewood theatre.
We find no error in the instructions or in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admission or exclusion of testimony. The record being free from reversible error, the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.
If you ever wondered how “Bank Night” worked in the 1930s, this case should answer your questions.
The Iris Amusement Corporation filed its amended complaint for injunction in the superior court of Cook county, seeking to restrain the mayor and commissioner of police of the city of Chicago from interfering with its conducting a gift enterprise known as “Bank Night.” Afterwards, the Balaban & Katz corporation and several other theatre owners intervened as co-plaintiffs.
In operating Bank Night, thousands of persons outside of the theatre in the surrounding neighborhood of the theatre registered their names in certain books kept for this purpose. Each name registered in the books was given a number. Patrons attending the theatre from time to time are also permitted to register their names in said book kept for the same purpose, which patrons who have so registered are also given a number. Any one desiring to register in said books may do so without paying admission or giving any consideration of any kind therefor. Duplicates of the numbers appearing in said registration book are placed on a small ticket approximately an inch square and all of said numbers contained on said tickets are placed in a small container. All persons whose names are so registered in said registration book, whether said registration was obtained outside of the theatre or in the theatre are notified that on certain days during the performance at a certain hour one of the tickets in said receptacle will be drawn out by some person chosen from the audience of the theatre and that the person whose name is registered in the book having the number corresponding to the number on the ticket so drawn would be given a substantial cash prize by the theatre operator, varying in amounts, and the winner of said cash prize or Bank Night need not be a patron of said theatre. The winner is announced to the audience of said theatre and is also announced to all persons standing outside said theatre. Any person standing outside of said theatre whose number has been called as a winner of said Bank Night is admitted into the theatre without any admission price or cost to him and is given the cash prize. At no time does any person whose name is registered in the book, whether registered outside of the theatre or inside of the theatre, pay any consideration for having his name so registered in said registration book.
Quite contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the element of price is present. As the Massachusetts court said, we may look at this thing realistically and sensibly. We know that those within the theatre pay for any chance anyone outside may have to win. Furthermore, we know that the chance of an outdoor participant is decidedly limited by the requirement that he reach the stage in a short time. We know that if any appreciable number of outside persons are to participate in the drawing they must loiter on the street, obstructing normal traffic, and that they must crowd the lobby and theatre exits to the danger of those within. The price for a fair and reasonable chance to win is the cost of a ticket of admission to the theatre, which is the object of the plan, and thus a lottery is completed, even under plaintiffs' own definition and contention.
Our public policy against lotteries expressed in two constitutions, in the Criminal Code, and in the ordinance before us, is much too firmly rooted to be evaded by any chimerical device. Our conclusion is that the operation of the scheme outlined in the amended complaint constitutes a lottery and that the plaintiffs have no standing in a court of equity for its furtherance or protection.
The superior court correctly dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and its decree will be affirmed.
Here is a 1986 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/cdx6we
Here is a 1946 photo from Life magazine:
http://tinyurl.com/dcjn46
Here is a B&W marquee shot:
http://tinyurl.com/d52hfp
Here is an undated B&W photo:
http://tinyurl.com/cfalc7
Here is a 1936 photo:
http://sclee.library.ucla.edu/003/09/i0030901.jpg
This was the Ritz in 1983:
http://tinyurl.com/cg2bkg
Here is a 1982 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/cq9gdy
I took these photos today. Walking around inside, you get a feel for how immense this place is. There is certainly no sign of redevelopment, just the usual swap meet chaos.
http://tinyurl.com/dgj9xk
http://tinyurl.com/c4mzps
http://tinyurl.com/de29rc
http://tinyurl.com/c55wda
http://tinyurl.com/d88bt8
http://tinyurl.com/cxfhyw
http://tinyurl.com/d6ahjc
http://tinyurl.com/cz6trh
http://tinyurl.com/cehksz
http://tinyurl.com/c34vqy
http://tinyurl.com/cffkuh
Here are some photos taken today:
http://tinyurl.com/c695jq
http://tinyurl.com/cqp9ar
http://tinyurl.com/cpr98s
http://tinyurl.com/dl7kpn
http://tinyurl.com/cggwv2
The link didn’t work for me.
Here is a photo taken today:
http://tinyurl.com/c5wmnf
From the Library of Congress:
http://tinyurl.com/cswesr
I recall driving around this area immediately following the riots, but I don’t remember seeing the theater. It looks like it was demolished shortly thereafter.
Here is an item dated 12/20/56 from the Anderson Herald:
INDIANAPOLIS (UP) â€" The Esquire Theater Wednesday announced it will not show the controversial movie “Baby Doll”, the picture recently denounced by Francis Cardinal Spellman as “immoral.” The management of the theater said it has cancelled the movie, scheduled to open next Wednesday. No other bookings have been made here.
A spokesman for the theater said the cancellation resulted from a difference of opinion with Warner Bros., distributors of the film. He said the controversy was over “conditions under which the picture would playâ€.
Here is a photo circa 1957:
http://tinyurl.com/cgd35s
Here is a 1983 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dztpqu
Here is an undated photo of the Princess:
http://tinyurl.com/c8zne2
Here is a 1939 photo from the Brooklyn Public Library:
http://tinyurl.com/dn74ka
Here is a 1963 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/czopff
If you look at the comment on June 14, 2005, it is mentioned that the Park may have been demolished for apartments. The current view on Google shows no building like the Park but does show a very large apartment building at that address. Any local confirmation would be helpful.
Here is a 1980 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dk2uqz
Here is a view of the concession stand in 1960:
http://tinyurl.com/cctqm8
Here is a 1980 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dgoju7
This is the website for the current occupant. My suggestion would be community center for the function. The building is still standing, although much of the ornamentation in the 1930 photo is gone.
http://www.journeyhouse.org/index.php
Organ failure in 1921:
March 23, 1917, plaintiff had judgment against defendants by confession for $3,759.72 and costs. The defense set up in the affidavit is that defendants on February 13, 1917, operated the Rosewood theatre as a moving picture house; that when they purchased the theatre it was supplied with a pipe-organ orchestra of plaintiff’s manufacture; that it did not give satisfaction and that plaintiff represented that it could not be made to give satisfaction because of its location in the theatre; that thereupon the plaintiff sold to the defendants one pipe-organ orchestra, style “V,” for $5,500, and warranted that it would give satisfaction; that $1,510 was paid on account of the purchase price at the time and the balance of the purchase price was the note in judgment; that the organ did not give satisfaction in that it failed to keep in tune; that the various pipes and stops were so constructed as to create sounds which were displeasing to all who heard them; that defendants notified plaintiff of the defects, which it attempted to correct, but failed in doing so; that by reason of such defects the organ was of no value to defendants, who notified plaintiff to remove it, which plaintiff refused to do, whereupon defendants removed it and placed it in storage for plaintiff’s account, sending the warehouse receipt therefor to it; that a consideration for said $3,900 note on which judgment had been confessed had wholly failed. A chattel mortgage was given upon the organ to secure the note, and it appears that after the organ was stored plaintiff sold it under the chattel mortgage and that it brought $1,044. On a trial before court and jury there was a verdict and judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiff brings the record here by this appeal for review.
There was an abundance of evidence from which the jury might properly find that the style “V” organ which defendants bought of plaintiff for their moving picture theatre was wholly unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was purchased and entirely worthless to defendants in their moving picture business in which it was to be used, and that plaintiff knew the purpose for which the organ was to be used and, so knowing, installed it in defendants' Rosewood theatre.
We find no error in the instructions or in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admission or exclusion of testimony. The record being free from reversible error, the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.
If you ever wondered how “Bank Night” worked in the 1930s, this case should answer your questions.
The Iris Amusement Corporation filed its amended complaint for injunction in the superior court of Cook county, seeking to restrain the mayor and commissioner of police of the city of Chicago from interfering with its conducting a gift enterprise known as “Bank Night.” Afterwards, the Balaban & Katz corporation and several other theatre owners intervened as co-plaintiffs.
In operating Bank Night, thousands of persons outside of the theatre in the surrounding neighborhood of the theatre registered their names in certain books kept for this purpose. Each name registered in the books was given a number. Patrons attending the theatre from time to time are also permitted to register their names in said book kept for the same purpose, which patrons who have so registered are also given a number. Any one desiring to register in said books may do so without paying admission or giving any consideration of any kind therefor. Duplicates of the numbers appearing in said registration book are placed on a small ticket approximately an inch square and all of said numbers contained on said tickets are placed in a small container. All persons whose names are so registered in said registration book, whether said registration was obtained outside of the theatre or in the theatre are notified that on certain days during the performance at a certain hour one of the tickets in said receptacle will be drawn out by some person chosen from the audience of the theatre and that the person whose name is registered in the book having the number corresponding to the number on the ticket so drawn would be given a substantial cash prize by the theatre operator, varying in amounts, and the winner of said cash prize or Bank Night need not be a patron of said theatre. The winner is announced to the audience of said theatre and is also announced to all persons standing outside said theatre. Any person standing outside of said theatre whose number has been called as a winner of said Bank Night is admitted into the theatre without any admission price or cost to him and is given the cash prize. At no time does any person whose name is registered in the book, whether registered outside of the theatre or inside of the theatre, pay any consideration for having his name so registered in said registration book.
Quite contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the element of price is present. As the Massachusetts court said, we may look at this thing realistically and sensibly. We know that those within the theatre pay for any chance anyone outside may have to win. Furthermore, we know that the chance of an outdoor participant is decidedly limited by the requirement that he reach the stage in a short time. We know that if any appreciable number of outside persons are to participate in the drawing they must loiter on the street, obstructing normal traffic, and that they must crowd the lobby and theatre exits to the danger of those within. The price for a fair and reasonable chance to win is the cost of a ticket of admission to the theatre, which is the object of the plan, and thus a lottery is completed, even under plaintiffs' own definition and contention.
Our public policy against lotteries expressed in two constitutions, in the Criminal Code, and in the ordinance before us, is much too firmly rooted to be evaded by any chimerical device. Our conclusion is that the operation of the scheme outlined in the amended complaint constitutes a lottery and that the plaintiffs have no standing in a court of equity for its furtherance or protection.
The superior court correctly dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and its decree will be affirmed.