The Richmond palladium. (Richmond, Ind.) 1906-1907, 1906-10-11
Attorneys Fight Over Kind of
Evidence to Be Admitted
and State Wins.
GREAT INTEREST IN CASE
TIME OF THE COURT WAS TAKEN
UP AT FfNDLAY YESTERDAY BY
ARGUMENTS OVER RockEFEL.
LER'S STATEMENTS.

ton In the trial here of the Standard
Oil company of Ohio, for conspiracy
against trade. occupied the entire ses-
sion of court in the submission of doc
umentary evidence. This evidence
consists of the pleadings and testi-
mony in the two suits against the
Standard Oil trust before the supreme
court Of the state in 1892 and 1897. At
torney V. p. Kline, conducting the
case for the Standard, maintained
there was no competency in rehearins
this IAN Gent history" but Prosecutor
David and his. assistant, Mr. Phelps.
insisted it was necessary that the jury
may get the proper perspective Of the
case
r. L. Bates and John O'Brien of
Lima, both connected with the Buck
eye Pipe Line company, were sub
poenaed by the prosecution in addi-
ton to their list of witnesses. AS yet
the defense has presented DO list OF
witnesses.
Before the jury was brought into
court on it's convenins attorneys for
the prosecution and defense held
preliminary YarSurient : touching the
competencyicf admitting the testi-
mony of MR. Rockefeller given in the
previous trial Mr. Phelps, for the
prosecution maintained that this evil
dence by Mr.tRockefeller was highly
material, and in fact the very essence
Of the caseiing trial.
In objectins MrsKline said he would
not ccncede even the authenticity of
the statements. Mr. Phelps retorted
that Mr. Rockefeller was then, as now,
president of the defendant company,
and what he then said the trust had
done, is competent evidence.
Mr. Rockefeller , has not been
shown to be and in fact is not presi-
dent of this defendant company" as
serted Attorney Tfoup for the defense
THE statements he then made were
years before this cause of action. The
things charged in this suit are things
done in Hancock county since 1903.
How can such statements be compe-
tent evidence"
Judge Banker interrupted to remark
that the evidence was only offered to
that time, which of course would not
convict the defendant within the time
of the present charge. but simply to
show that such a trust was formed.
Attorney General Ellis said he could
net do his duty to the state if he did
not give his judgment in the case.
Clearly, in my opinion, this evidence
ie admissible he said. He further
maintained that in giving the testi-
mony in question Mr.. Rockefeller was
acting fol- the corporation, and that il
he could not and did not act, there
would be no way whatever of proving
any acts of a corporation
Judge Banker admitted the testi-
mony as competent. His ruling came
at the conclusion of an argument of an
hour and half. IF the answers of
Mr.. Rockefeller he said, tended to
prove any act within the three years
covered by this suit, the objections
might be valid, but it is simply de-
sired to show the acts of the corpora
ton prior to that time
The jury was brought in when the
trial resumed and Mr.. Phelps began
the reading Of Mr.. Rockefeller's an
swers to the interrogateries sworn to-
in February, 1898. These answers adj
mitted the original trust and gave
light on the organization of the sub
sidiary companies