The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-07-14

VS. - OuOu6bLs
ct.
not directly nor in form required by
law. Essential elements, they main
tanned, had been brought in under a
videlicet and not in the form required
by law.
They argued that the acts alleged
as the objects of the conspiracy
charged had been set forth as some.
thing done in addition to conspiring,
making two offenses charged. They
maintain that is was duplicitious.
They asked the court to hold that, if
the object of the conspiracy was an
offense, then the information was
faulty, because the conspiracy had
been merged with an overt act.
1t was defective, counsel urged, be-
cause criminal intent bad not been
charged, and because there was no
averment Of Intention to sell ice at
an unreasonable price.
The Concluding Grounds.
In concluding they held the informa-
ton charged statutory offense.
while no statutory offense was shown.
Attention was called to the fact
! that no names had been given as
those to whom the ice had been sold
but that in every instance the phrase
ITO your informant unknown was
used. @ - - "a st 49, b,
Then they claimed that the in
formation was SO vague, indistiact.
and uncertain as to embarrass them
| in the preparation of the defense, and
to render them liable, in the event
of either conviction Or acquittal, to
future prosecution The last ground
+, was that no indictable offense had
been shown.
The, Argument Begins.
: Judge Shaylor stated to counsel
| that he did not wish 10 hear argl-
ment on the points that had been elab.
Grated during the former argument,
and which he had already passed
upon, and Immediately thereafter, the
argument on the motion to quash be.
gan.
Attorney A. w. Cockrell, Jr., of A.
w. Cockrell & Son, opened for the
defense. Mr.. Cockrell laid especial
stress upon the failure to allege
! criminal intent, and the alleged mex.
pliclty of the solicitor in stating that
Ice was a necessity, claiming that il
/ was thus referred to only in a pas.
! sive way The question as to whether
: monopoly was or was not crime was
| also taken UP and elaborated.
Judge w. B. Young followed Mr.
Cockrell, and in an able presentation
of the common law of England, dis.
cussed the question of the criminality
, OF nonopolies. He laid great stress
upon the charge relative to controll-
| Ing the sale and manufacture of ice
claiming that this was no offense Sc
long as no distinctly criminal means
had been used. And furthermore. he
argued, all that was necessary was
Tor them to put in plant, manu-
tacture the ice, and dispose of it
where and at what price, they could.
Solicitor Bryan Replies.
Solicitor w. ]. Bryan, on behalf OF
the state, replied to the argument OF
counsel in brief and concise, but
very able discussion of the entire
question.
He took up the questions of what
constituted monopolies and whether
or not they were Criminal. Decision
after decision was quoted and then
referring to the information he pointed
out all that these courts had ruled
as necessary had been charged by
him against the defendants.
Then point by point, he took I'D the
twenty-eight objections that had been
raised against the information, answer
ing each Of them and ably and i'm
pressively maintaining his position In
the entire matter. He closed by ex
pressing his confidence that the mo
ton would be denied.
Fleming and Fletcher.
Former Governor Francis P. Elem
ing. of Fleming & Fleming, was the
next speaker. Governor Fleming
went into the case at length, QUOTING
many decisions and strengthening con
s'derably the arguments of the coun
sci associated with him in the case
He also touched on the common Law
and its provisions. bringing out many
new points in favor Of his position.
Hon. Duncan u. Fletcher closed
for the defense Mr.. Fletcher dweli
on the alleged defects in the infOrma
ton, maintaining that they were
fatal. He also contended that the
acts charged were not indictable and
that monopoly was no offense. He
closed with very able summing vi
OF the position taken by the defense
Nj L.