and Pidgeon. Commonweal described it as "well constructed, well enough written, admirably directed ... and excellently acted". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle said the action came in "fits and starts", but praised the acting and the novelty of the use of a jury. New York Post critic John Mason Brown said the play had some flaws, but was an exciting, above-average melodrama. Brooks Atkinson gave it a negative review in The New York Times, calling it "the usual brew of hokum". A review from Theatre Arts Monthly was also dismissive, calling the play a "fashionable game" that would be "fun in a parlor" but seemed "pretty foolish" on stage. Some reviews focused on Woods as the source of the play's positive attributes because he had had many previous theatrical successes. Time said Woods was repeating a successful formula from The Trial of Mary Dugan. Reviews that praised these elements were an embarrassment to Rand, who considered Woods' changes to be negative. Again, reviewers ignored the broader themes that Rand considered important. Professional productions in other North American cities typically received positive reviews. Austin B. Fenger described the production at San Francisco's Geary Theater as "darned good theater" that was "well acted" and "crisply written". Charles Collins said the Chicago production was "a first class story" that was "well acted by an admirably selected cast". Thomas Archer's review of the Montreal production described it as "realistic" and "absorbing". The London production in 1936 received mostly positive reviews but was not a commercial success. A reviewer for The Times praised Foster's performance as "tense and beautiful". In The Daily Telegraph, reviewer W. A. Darlington said the show would be popular with audiences, but the production ended its run in less than a month. The review in The Glasgow Herald described it as a "strong, quick thriller", but with inferior dialog to The Trial of Mary Dugan. The reviewer for The Spectator was more critical, saying the play itself was "strong", but was undermined by "mediocre playing" from "bad actors". The 1973 revival as Penthouse Legend was a failure and received strongly negative reviews. A reviewer for The Village Voice complimented the story's melodramatic plot twists but said it was "preposterously badly written" and described the production as "conventional and obvious". In The New York Times, Clive Barnes called the play tedious and said the acting was "not particularly good". It closed within a