Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System…

It is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given their testimony can be appraised. Trial by affidavit is no substitute for trial by jury which so long has been the hallmark of 'even handed justice.'
Other contentions of respondents are subject to ready disposition. They say that no restraint of trade resulted from CBS' termination of its affiliation with WCAN for this enabled it to support WOKY, the other UHF station in the Milwaukee area, which based upon Poller's own allegations was doomed without an affiliation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System…

Furthermore, Poller submitted a deposition of Holt, an exhibit to which showed CBS had furnished Holt a complete analysis in writing of the Milwaukee market and the ownership and affiliation of the TV stations there, including WCAN. The deposition revealed that Holt had knowledge that the obvious purpose and necessary effect of the plan would be to eliminate independent UHF in Milwaukee and that he had a personal stake in its success.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System…

It is argued that CBS cannot conspire with itself. However, this begs the question for the allegation is that independent parties, i.e., Holt and Bartell, conspired with CBS and its officers. [4] While respondents' affidavits assert that Holt acted in good faith as a special agent or employee for CBS and that Bartell was completely free of any evil motives directed toward WCAN, the trial judge indicated a belief that Holt was 'an independent actor' and would have submitted the question of his status to the jury had he not disposed of the case on other grounds.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature