BETTE DAVIS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19199, 16 December 1936, Page 10

BETTE DAVIS

CONTRACT LAWSUIT UNUSUAL ASPECTS LONDON, Oct. 15. English barristers to-day argued in court over whether an American actress contract could be broken if she : 1. Had a baby. 2. Divorced her husband before three years. 3. Was forced to attend a political dinner. These intricacies of a Hollywood contract were debated ill an injunction hearing to decide whether Bette Davis, the actress, was legally under contract to Warner Bros., or whether she was entitled to make a film for a British company in England. Sir Patrick Hastings, representing the Warners, brought to light the baby, divorce and political dining aspects of the case during examination of Ins client, Jack Leonard Warner, vice-president of the American film company. Opposing counsel, Sir Patrick declared, had held that Miss Davis’ contract was a pretty stiff one, and that it had been broken because she was forced to dine with politicians. DENIES PROPOSALS Sir William Jowitt, Miss Davis’ counsel, asked whether Warner’s brother, Harry, had not asked Miss Davis to sign an agreement that she would not divorce her husband for three years and including the other stipulations. “I am sure,” replied Jack Warner, “that my brother never made any such proposal, or even thought of it.” Miss Davis is married to Harmon O. Nelson, iun., California orchestra leader. Regarding the “required” political dining of Miss Davis, Warner said he told seekers’ after her attendance at a Jefferson Day dinner in New York, “I can’t request her to appear, because the dinner is of a political nature, but if you care to ask her, it would be satisfactory to me. Six of England’s foremost lawyers are engaged in the case, which is expected to continue for three days.