The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1898-04-13
.olPlNloNtof JUDGE JUDGE. JACKSON

INVOLVED. \
~ yesterday. In tho United States cir
cult court. Judge Jackson on the bench
the famous h"oleo', cases, which tauo
hung fro for some time, came to their.
conclusion. Last week. It Will be re-
WONDERED. ono OF these cases--t tie test.
case---that OF Hubbard s PAUL against
tho government was titled. the testimony
being finished Friday afternoon. BE-
4 fore the jury took tho case, there was
an effort 10 compromise tho Hubbard
a. PAUL case and the other cases, which,
\ hung on the decision in the former. The
district attorney and counsel FOR the
plaintiffs got together, and the result d
that all OF the cases are settled without
the expense and uncertainty OF u trial
for each. III L n
The amount OF money involved was
over $1,000, OF which over $4,000 had
been collected by the revenue officials
1 from four Wheeling wholesale firms,
Hubbard & PAUL, the Joseph Speidei
Grocery Company. Swift & Company
! and the Baers' Sons Grocer Company.
The thirteen retail firms that figured;
paid on the average s65 each. These
amounts were the penalty for violation
of the law. 2 S,.,,. z. 52l & n eH
The decision IN the cases Is in eject,
that the, firms that sold the "oleoe be-
ileving 1t to be creamery butter, are 10
receive from the government the mo.
ueyi they paid as the so per cent aidI-l
tional tax for not paying the reVenue
tax on the "oleo." The government re.
tains the money paid for the tax pro-
per. Each side pays its own costs. X
Judge Jacksoa's opinion is printed be-
low in fill: RI
In the Circuit Court OF the United
States, for the District of West Vir-i
gtuia. -
Hubbard & PAUL. Plaintiffs, .vs. E.. af.a
Gilkeson. Collector of Internal ReYe-
nue., &c. si
Oral charge OF Judge jackson to the
jury t
Gentlemen OF the Jry-This action
brought by Hubbard & PAUL, wholesale,
Erocers OF the city Of Wheeling, against
Edward N. Gilkeson. collector OF the
United States internal revenue for this
district, to recover $3.50 dollars from the
defendant for having wrongfully and
Illegally assessed a fine against said
plaintiffs in that amount, for dealing in
and handling oleomargarine without
having paid the special tax imposed by
the statute. 3 <
The evidence in, this case dlscloses the
fact that Wilkins & Company sold at
different periods. and almost continue
orsly, large amounts Of some matter
which the evidence. in my mind,
establishes was oleomarSarine. The
evidence further dlscloses, and the facts
in the; case tend 10 show, that Stole.
Brothers were aware OF the naturetof
the article they were selling and that,
they were actually selling It in a fraudu-
lent way to their customers. do not.
see how any other conclusion can he
reached from the evidence; and ! am.
4 sorry to say that It further discloses IL
there was not an open, direct conspiracy:
between the shippers In Washington and:
the firm of Stoke Brothers here, that
these sales were to be carried on in this.
way, that there Is sufficient evidencs to
satisfy me that Doth Of these firms
{ knew all about It. The't two letters that:
4 we're written by Stolze Brothers to Wiz
kins & Company disclose the fact that
Stolze Brothers knew exactly wha. they;
were purchasing. independent OF all
other evidence in the case, because they
stated In those letters that wilkins &
Company must be careful about the COL
orinS Of the goods, and IL they were not
careful about it that It might arouse
suspicion and get both firms into trou-
{ bic II this was n clean transaction
upon the part Of these men-both the
shipper and the firm OF Stolze Brothers
here, who were dealing In these goods
there was no occasion whatever for
4 StolZe Brothers to have written those
letters of admon!tion to the parties In
Washington.
( 8 The evidence In this case shows that
Wilkins &: Company sold this substance
20 Stole Brothers TO: creamery butter.
but both Wilkins & Company and Stoke
Brothers knew, as q matter OF fact, that
the, substance sold was oleomargarinc,
j and the price OF ten cents per pound paid
s by Stolze Brothers Ia wilkins & Com
pany Is evidence OF the fact that Il wa
oieomarsarine. 4 % ~
Everything in this case-the cfrarac-
4 Ger Of John c. Stolze's evidence upon The
i stand. his hesitrncy. flis lacis OF memory
and the fact that he had oblitera:ed the
Z evidences OF this fraud 10y destroying
those drafts. tend to satisfy the mind OF
the court OF his guilty participation in
this matter; and that both the parties In
Washington and StolZe Brothers here,
knew the nature and character OF this
article that was oelns veDicd and sold
by the parties in Washington and vend-
ed and sold by Stolze BROTHERS, I haven't
the shadow OF a doubt.
Now, then, we reach the point at whlch
these other parties here in Wheeling,
who nre plaintiffs In these notions. be-
come Interested in this matter. And
what Is that point? They are wholesale
Erocers and commission merchants here.
they send their orders 10 the parties who
are dealing In these goods and who. the
evidence d!scioscs, wera large OPERATOR,
4 In this class OF provisions, md tlley pur-
chase them and sell them. What MA 6
their. duty in the premises? Is Ii possible
z That a firm like Hubbard & PAUL md
the other firms VINO have brought these
4 actions. did not have a suspicion II, .rc.
gard to THO matter? II they did NOT
ought not they have had a suspIcinn
and ought not they to have known
whether they Tcre dealing in that which
was coTraband? 1t was contrabnrld
unless tho tax imposed by the govern.
,nent OF the United States was pniJ
Ordinary caution. ordinary prudence
should have suggested to these parties
the Importance and necessity. for self
protection, or an investigation OF thc
character OF sne goods they were buying
and which tnese parties were selling
All Of US do shat when we buy anythjI,e
Z We ask about I. and we look al III
When yvn 20 ITO our grocnra or ts. l,,, :, w