The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-05-18

The indicted coal dealers must stand
trial. Judge Mumford handed down two
opinions In the superior court yesterday
afternoon bearing on this point and max
ing IL clear that the men and corpora
tions who were indicted for con-
spiracy in combining TO fix the price on
coal will be placed on trial on the charges
preferred against them after the hearing
before the special grand jury impanelled
on Feb. ] last. The price OF coal was
Jumped on Jan. %.
When the indictments were made public
the coal dealers filed pleas I'm abatemen
ard sought to have the questions certi-
fled to tie supreme court
Attorney General Greenough filed de-
murrers 10 their pleas on behalf or the
state
Judge Mumford sustains the states de-
murrers. deciding against the pleas in
aba;emsn Mt filed by the defendants
The special grand jury found two in
dict-lcnIs against~the coal Dealers one
OF them against George r. Warren of
Boston. OF the Eastern Coal company;
Smith J. Burton OF Brookline. Mass, ot
the firm OF Curran & Burton, Inc. aud
James A.. Kinghorn and Merwin White
OF John II. White e. Sons. Inc The other
was against Curran .& Burton. Inc. Doe
& Little company. John r. White & Son.
Inc. Eastern Coal company and Harry
G. Clark, treasurer OF the Providence
Coal company. In each instance the in
diotment returned was for conspiracy in
combining to Ak the price OF coal What
Judge Mumfori has to say regarding the
dcnarrers and the pleas In these casrs Is
substantially rs follows:
This indictment charges the defendants
with conspiracy in combining ID Tx the
price OF coal
Three OF the defendants have appeared
ana filed pleas in abatement, - whicr
pleas the state has demurred, and the
case IL before the court on that demurrer.
REQUIRED TO TESTIFY"
THE first plea in abatement sets up
mat grand jury was impanelled Feb. /.
1907; that a subpoena issued by a Justice
or the peace In Massachusetts, was served
on the defendant Burton and subpoenas
issued out of this court were served on
the defendants. Knghorn and White.
commanding them to appear before said
grand jury as witnesses; that they did
so appear, were sworn, examined and re-
CURED to testify and did testify as 10
certain matters and things relating to
and material TO the charges in the indict-
ments: that the testimony was given
without said witnesses or either OF them
being Informed by the grand Jury or the
prosecuting officer that such testimony
might be used a ground for a crimi-
nal charge against said defendants or any
or them, and without knowledge on the
part OF said witnesses or either of them
that the grand jury were considering any
PENDANTS and without being informed or
warned relative to their constitutional
rights or privileges; and that said WITT
nesses and each of them were compelled
and required by said grand Jury and by
the prosecuting officer to give material
evidence tending TO incriminate said wit
nesses and each OF them and thereafter
said indictments were found.
"Tht second and third pleas are sub
stantially the same so far as concerns the
questions to be considered.
SUBSTITUTED PLEA.
THE substituted fourth plea sets forth
that a justice Of this court. at the request
OF the attorney-general, ordered George
Farnell. one of the stenographers of this
court. TO be present before the grand jury
for the purpose OF taking down the tes-
timony OF the witnesses called to testify:
that said Farnell was present and took
down the testimony OF the witnesses. and
said testimony or a substantial portion
thereof. was each day during said inves-
legation transcribed In typewriting by
transcript so made was from day to day
furnished TO the attorney-general and
used and referred TO by said attorAey-
general and said grand jury during their
deliberations.
THE defendants strenuously urge that
the questions raised are OF such doubt
and Importance and so affect the merits
OF the controversy that they should be
certified TO the supreme court under the
provisions Of chapter AS OF the court and
practice act
CERT1FICATION DENIED.
There being a serious question whether
the pleas are formally correct the court
would not. In my opinion, be justified
in certifying the questions TO the SUI
preme court, and the request OF the de-
PENDANTS for such certihcation must be
denied
THE court would be justified in sus-
tNnlng the demurrer on account OF the
insufficiency OF the pleas In point OF form.
as a general demurrer to plea In abate-
ment is sufficient TO reach all defects in
the plea. whether OF form or substance.
1T is. however not necessary 20 base
the decision on this narrow ground as n
consideration OF the substantial allega-
tions OF the pleas leads TO the same re-
suit.
"The first three pleas are based on an
alleged violation OF the rights OF the de-
PENDANTS under section IL. article I. OF the
constitution, that No man In court OF
common law shall be compelled TO give
evidence eliminating himself
''lt does not appear by the plea under
consideration. either by direct statement
or by inference. so far as inference Is
permissible In constituting a plea In abate-