The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-26
ICE TRUST HEADS SENT TO JAIL
jIIRI ~ HORkH mrs w. ron PROWI.
NENT NJ SiNESS UEN
siaslmum Penalty InHlr,rib, Ts,Ni" Judge
Under OhiS ANTITRUST t.a~ win MT
1UrSldes APPS, TIN d'on,'ne ''as
nea,ored Money tNtorIed Fram Pul'Iic.

HNh NNNN y NsNNNNN
Under OhiS ANTITRUST baW VIII MT
1Uf1,drs Appsal TiA s'omt'Re I'as
Uea,osef Money tNtorte d fraHh Pui',ir.
ToLFpo. Ohio. june ?, Five ice hcalrra
rerc fined 5000 and sentenced To one yenr
IN tho worhhouSe by Judge KInkado to-day
for violation ~ the Valentine antitrust
law,
The sentence Is the ma Simttm penalty
under the statute and II t. the first time
that tho imprisonment clause has been
enforced. Other violations Of the same
law have beer punished 10y hnes, no i'm
prisonment tlving been imposed.
The sentence Ii to begin Immediately,
but the Court has promised that If the
money extorted from the people he re-
turned to them, and IL the trust ceases
operations as such, he will listen to a plea
that part Of the imprisonment he RENTED.
The men sentenced are Joseph A.. Miller,
manager of the Toledo Ice and Coal Com
rany; h. C. Lennon and f. A. Beard,
officers OF the Hygeia Ice Company, and
two OF tne WOst ploInhleil o'iiV "''
society men in the city, the former a grand
son Of the late Judge Reuben C.. Lennon.
the famous jurist; Peter H. Waters Of the
Michigan Lake Ice Company, and II. P.
Breining of the Bawbee Company.
The court held that inasmuch "a the
convicted ice dealers had not taken the
stand and perjured themselves and had
admitted their guilt, he would give them
the opportunity to make reparation and
thus shorten their sentences.
The convicted men were taken to Jail
this afternoon and will be committed to
the workhouse in the morning.
Miller was tried and convicted Of violating
the Valentine antitrust law. Then the
others came into court and pleaded guilty.
The crusade against the ice trust was con-
Quoted by Prosecute or Wachenheimer elected
last fall on an independent ticket
Judge Kinkad de will not listen to any APP
real unless the ice trust will agree to reim-
burse the public. There is no chance to
appeal to a higher court. The Board OF
Public Service can parole workhouse pris-
oners sent from the police court but not
those sentenced from the Common Pleas
Court. except with the consent Of the sem
NiClhB OutBV'
Prosecutor Wa chenheimer will begin
custer proceedings to Dust these companies
from their charters. He will also proceed
against the other local combines that are
violating the Valentine antitrust law.
Clarence Brown, attorney for one of the
convicted men, made the statement to the
Court that the Toledo Bar Association
was a trustin the eyes of the Valentine law
in that attorneys agreed or the minimum
and ma ximum retainer fees. He asserted
further that the newspapers were violating
the Valentine law by establishing a schedule
Of prices for advertising. This was di-
rected mainly at the prosecutor.
sGive me the evidence that lawyers and
newspapers are in a trust and l will indict
every one of them and convict them, re-
torted Wachenh eimer.
In passing sentence. Judge Kinkade said
that il there could be any reason shown for
{. change in the sentence the case would
stay with him the remainder of the term.
He then vent on to say that until such time
ms the public had been reimbursed with
oil that had been taken from it, and until
proof positive was given that no future
attempts would be made to again hold up
he public, the sentences would stand
ST. LOUIS. June ga decision was
handed down in the Circuit Court to day
by Judge Ryan in favor of a purchaser who
contended that he did not have to pay for
goods which he voluntarily bought from a
concern which, he alleges, is in a trust.
The ahill-Swift Manufacturing Com
pany had brought suit for $?io.sa against
Joseph F.. Walsh, a plumber, on the allega-
ton that Walsh had bought goods to the
value of the Judgment asked and had re-
fused to pay for them.
Walsh acknowledged that this was true.
His counsel termed the company a trust,
and argued that the defendant did not have
to pay for goods bought from a trust any
moro than hi would have to pay a gambling
debt.
Walsh's defence was based solely upon
his antitrust argument and the Courts
decision was in his favor.