Arizona republican., 1907-01-04
De MUND GOT
FIRST FALL
Government Lost the Initial
Trust Case
The Jury Directed to Ac-
quit On Account of Insult
ficiency of Proof.

The government has failed in the first
OF the trust cases. that of the De Mund
Lumber company and others. At the
conclusion of the testimony for the
United States yesterday afternoon the
defense moved the court To instruct
The jury To acquit on the ground that
the allegations contained in the indict-
ment had not been proved. After an
argument OF the matter the motion
was granted
Several witnesses were put forward
in the course of the day. They were
generally contractors of Phoenix,
Tempe and Mesa but generally they
had no definite knowledge of the prices
for lumber charged by all the parties
to the alleged combine. They under
stood though that the prices were the
same at all of the lumber yards but
they only knew what the prices were
at one or another of them.
The most important witness of the
day was Mont Anderson who conduct
ed a lumber yard at Glendale. He
testified that the combination had re-
fused TO sell him lumber unless he
would come in" that is unless he
would stand by the price on which all
the others had agreed. Mr.. Anderson
presented a letter which he had receiv-
ed from II. W. Ryder on the subject
II was contended. however on the
part of the defense that Mr.. Ryder had
written that letter on his own motion
and without the knowledge of any of
the lumber companies which were made
defendants in this prosecution.
The motion TO dismiss was based on
broader grounds that Judge Kent en-
tertained. 1t was alleged in support
of it that none of the allegations had
been proved though a great many
things had been proved which had not
been alleged by the government.
But the case really went out on the
allegation in the indictment that the
defendant lumber companies had re-
fused to sell lumber to all dealers who
would not join them in maintaining
the prices which had been fixed by
them. The court, said that sufficient
proof to go to the jury had been in
PRODUCED in support of the charge that
a combine existed. 1t did not make any
difference how or where ii had been
formed. just so it had been shown that
there was an agreement as to the prices
to be charged, and the court also held
that there was sufficient evidence that
the lumber yard had refused to sell
lumber to Anderson but that proof
would not support the allegation that
they had refused to sell to all dealers
who would not enter into an agreement
with them TO maintain prices. Itwas
not necessarily an unlawful combina-
ton or conspiracy for two or more
persons to agree not to sell TO a third
person. They might have various rea-
sons for not desiring to sell to him.
They might not like the shape of his
head. United States Attorney Alex
ander here suggested that in this case
it had been shown that the companies
had found no fault with Andersons
head but that they had refused to deal
with him because he would not prom
Use not to cut prices. The court. how
ever. was not of the opinion that the
refusal of the companies to deal with
Anderson was proof that as a result
of the alleged combination they would
deal with no outsiders"
The United States attorney said he
could furnish the necessary proof and
desired a reopening of the case. but the
jury was recalled and the verdict OF
acquittal was directed
Whether the cases against the other
lumber companies VIII be taken up is
uncertain. The indictments in all of
them are the same but in the others
the attorney for the government would
have an opportunity to bring in the
testimony for which he desired a re-
opening of this case.
The case of the govtrnment against