Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: L. RUDOLF COMPANY, INC., AND WILLIAM SCHAFFER 

CITATION: 12 Agric. Dec. 845 

DOCKET NUMBER: 57 

DATE: JULY 16, 1953 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

(No. 3564) 

In re L. RUDOLF COMPANY, INC., AND WILLIAM SCHAFFER. CEA Docket No. 57. 

Decided July 16, 1953. 

Motion to Dismiss Complaint Granted

Complainant's motion to dismiss complaint granted on the grounds that the 

evidence adduced at the hearing does not support the charges in the complaint. 

Mr. Benj. M. Holstein for Commodity Exchange Authority. Mr. Sidney V. Smith of 

Mechlin, Marshall & Smith, of Washington, D. C., for respondents. Mr. Maurice 

L. Albert of Reiger & Albert, of New York, New York, for New York Mercantile 

Exchange, amicus curiae. Mr. Will Rogers, Referee. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., 

Chapter 1). The complaint charges the respondents with attempting to manipulate 

and with manipulating the price of "check" eggs in interstate commerce on July 

8, 1952, 

by means of a series of progressively advancing bids near the close of trading 

in "check" eggs on the New York Mercantile Exchange. 

The respondents filed an answer denying the charges in the complaint. A 

hearing was held in New York, New York, on June 2 and 3, 1953, before Referee 

Will Rogers of the Office of Hearing Examiners, United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

Following the hearing, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss. The motion 

to dismiss states that during the course of the investigation preceding the 

filing of the complaint, employees of the Commodity Exchange Authority obtained 

oral statements from several persons which were believed to constitute 

substantial evidence to support the charge that respondent Schaffer made the 

bids in issue in order to establish a market price and not for the purpose of 

obtaining eggs. The motion to dismiss explains that these persons were 

supoenaed and testified as complainant's witnesses at the hearing but that their 

testimony at the hearing was substantially different from, and much weaker than, 

their oral statements given in the investigation preceding the filing of the 

complaint. The motion asks for dismissal of the complaint because of 

insufficient proof in the hearing record that an artificial or manipulated price 

was intended in the making of the bids in issue. 

The respondents filed an answer to the motion consenting to dismissal but 

submitting that the complainant should admit the charges to be unfounded and 

that the order of dismissal should contain a statement completely exonerating 
Page 2 

the respondents. The New York Mercantile Exchange, which had filed a memorandum 

as amicus curiae requesting dismissal upon the merits, also filed a document 

stating that it consented to the dismissal. The referee certified the 

complainant's motion to the Judicial Officer. 

Since the complainant has asked for dismissal of the complaint upon the 

ground that the evidence adduced at the hearing does not support the charges in 

the complaint, the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 3