New-York tribune., 1906-10-16
prBATE TRIAL BEGINS.
y y CENTRAL CASE UP.
c,ocEholders in Hearst Concerns
Barred as Jurors.

.o1 ~ the New York Central Railway
4pS charged with having Disseminated in
-,o,,nd traffic rates IN favor OF the Arner1-
C,,s- Refining Company and the American
o"- p.hnins Company Of New York, and also
s-,,o, of c. Goodiie Edgar and Edwin Earle.
sBrar jobbers Of Detroit came UP
..-asv before Judge Holt IN the Criminal
.,h of the United States Circuit Court. In
80 the Jury each talesrrsn was asked If he
- stock IN the defendant corporation or IN
...r,,.ra r. Hearst's corporations. by which Mr..
-, ,s enabled 10 avoid damage or libel suits
..,stt against his newspapers.
-. government was represented by United
-. Attorney Stimson and Assistant Attorney
- A Wise For the defendant corporation
=. cb;ef OF its legal department. ". w Harris.
..-sd. Associated with him were Austen G.
=, and John D Lindsay. MI Lindsay repre-
..-,ad more especially the two leading traffic
-.-rseers Of the railroad company. Nathan Gull
80 ,,s president. in charge Of traffic. and
r-.5e-ick l. Pomeroy. the general traffic man
- who were jointly indicted with the COM
rsny.
NJ Fox asked the Jurors IL they had read any
,-,,c,es in The New York American" attacking
he defendant for granting the alleged rebates.
they admitted that they had. but declared that
.hsv had not been Influenced by them.
Are any Of you stockholders Of the Star Pub
,sh,ng Company Of New Jersey or Of any other
s.steg" the lawyer then asked them.
Is there anything that would prejudice any
,,s-lber against the defendant" was one Of Mr..
rax's concluding questions 10 the Jury.
~ an 2 daily conmuter." said Edmund 3.
Tevlor. juror. United States Attorney Stimson
smiled. as did many others. Mr. Fox insisted he
s.7r nothing humorous in the fact that the juror
vas New York Central cornmuter.
'eleither CO I see anything humorous in it,
-ejoned Mr. Taylor.
The Jury as finally accepted was as follows:
Edmund B. Taylor, No. IS Cedar street; Charles
2. Newell No. IS Union Square East: John A.
Peterson. No. 142 Greene street; Egbert Mills,
No 70 Wan street: Eugene Lewis. No. $50 West
list street; James Timpson, No. 80 Nassau
greet; Charles s. Newman, No. 81 Maiden
Lane: Mortimer 2. Newman. No. 577 Broadway;
Jsr.ss 7. Tweedv. No. Wall street: James E.
GOdward. No. 253 Broadway: William Tank.
10. IS Warren street. and John Fish. No 5s
Beck street. The Bronx.
A. the opening Of the court an objection was
made by the defence TO the trial OF Guiford
snd Poue-oy as co-defendants with the railroad
company Mr.. Lindsay said that such a course
would prejudice his Clients interests individ-
usly. Tlls court ruled against him on this
point But as Vice-Presdent Guilford was Ill
and could under no conditions be present in
court Judge Holt ordered that the trial proceed
against ali the defendants except Mr.. Guilford.
Immediately after the noon recess MI Fox be-
Fan an argument il which he contended that
ne railroad company should not be brought to
eruinal trial for the alleged crimes of its
gents when not authorized by it 10 commit
asse crimes. NJ. Fox said in part:
There is no principle Of criminal law by which
tvinCipal can be held liable for a crime COM
Eat6 by his agent unless the principal is an
aEluzl participant in the crime. A principal or
EsEE Is prlIla faCie liable for the Illegal acts
izz. business authorized by the principal. But
Z the course Of the principal or masters
GVtul business the agent or servant commits
c1ne the master is not liable unless by some
sct or omission OF his own. distinct from that
& ne servant, he in fact participates in the
''rmission Of the crime
The court said that 1T believed that Congress
lad carefully considered the passage of the
Elkins act and that its provision relative to the
relations existing between master and servant
had been thoroughly considered.
Should proof be offered" said Judge Holt
70 show that rebates had been paid by an agent
:. corporation with q check drawn upon or by
ihs treasurer Of The corporation, should deem
That acr proof Of the corporations knowledge
that the alleged rebates had been allowed and
paio. and I should consider both the corporation
aad the agent guilty under the Elkins act The
notion of the defence was denied. The trial
vii proceed his morning upon the joint indict-
raent against the New YORK Central Railway
'oTpany and Frederick L. Pomeroy.