Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1907-12-12
ACTION ALL AFFIRMED.
Third District Court Of Civil
Appeals Upho'ds State In
WATERS-PIERCE DECISION.
In Every Particular the Verdict Of the
Jury Il Sustsined. Which Il Ouster -
Well ss Penalties Assrssssins Over
Million and Half Dollars.

AtnAtuf AfttI Ia It 'tHth VI 'tfti
appeals for the Third district affirmed
the opinion OF the trial court in the
custer SUIT Instituted by Attorney Gen
erai Davidson against the Waters
Pierce OIL company. Every conten-
tion made by the state Is upheld. in
ciuding the verdict Of the jury for can
collation. Of permit OF defendant com.
pany end to recover penalties amount
ing TO s1.s2s.ooo. The opinion was
delivered by Associate Justice Key
and unanimously concurred in. and
constitutes another victory for the
state.
The court OF civil appeals also re.
fused rehearing In the receivershiD
part OF the case. which finally. con
cludes another point In this litigation.
Unless an appeal 10 the supreme sonri
OF the United States Is taken In the
receivership case the Federal receiver
will be otisied as soon as the mandate
from the United States circuit corr;
at New Orleans is served ON him and
the state receiver will then take
charge
The court. In affirming the custer
and penalty suit. held that there Is evi.
dence In the record which supports
the finding OF the iinry and I'VE find
the facts 10 be as found by the YER
diet" In general terms the conclusions
OF the court are 20 effect that Il Is not
shown that error was committed in
overriding appellants application for
change OF venue: In various rulings
upon exceptions 10 pleadings. and as
20 admissibility OF testimony. No posl.
tive error has been assigned upon
charge OF the court. which charge this
court sets on, In full and makes II
part OF .ts opinion. The court says:
I'VE an agree that n the charge In
question be erroneous II affords no
grounds for reversal because the jury
found thst appellant had violated
other provisions of the antitrust act
Of 1903. and awarded only one penalty
for each dnys' violation"
The validity OF the acts OF 1899 and
1928. according 10 the court. fully an-
thorIze and sustain this suit The con-
tsntion that the act OF 1909 contains
criminal provision under which n
civil suit can be instituted does not
hold with court. 81 the legislature has
power 10 pass laws of this kind. An
other point not well known advanced
by the defendant company Is that
Is that same legislature which enacted
act OF 1899, also passed law allowing
labor orgarizatlons 10 organize for mu.
fual protection. The court says that
this nct grants no exemptions upon
the antitrust statue
The court also holds that. rights OF
'Se state arc fully preserved by act of
1890. riffoush II was Repealed by act
~ 1893. that the last act. while repeal.
ing the former enc. e@nressly gives
'he state the rieht TO enforce penalties
nrcerfihod b. oct Of 1899 as II WIS
legislative Intention 20 protect the
state even as TO enforcement OF pen.
alties
A. % the rolnf made by appellant
that fine was excessive. the court says
that he law was violated for six years.
and the verdict Is not so large as 10
render II manifest that the Jury was
nctuated by prejudice or other I'm
prope- motives. The appellant also
contends that testimony failed 10 show
that waters-P Pierce oil company has
violated any of the antitrust laws ~
the state. The court fluids that the
evidence Is very volnminous and Il q
not neccssart that II be set out or
epitomized In this opinion. II Is suf
flcinct. We think. 10 show from the
date Of its permit TO do business In
this state. May 81. 1900. appellant has
been a party 10 an agreement or un.
derstanding with the Standard OH
company OF New Jersey. one object of
which was to create monopoly and
control the price OF petroleum oil and
prevent competition In its sSSe. In
large specified territory including
Texas
I'VE hold that the verdict was SUP.
ported by the testimony and no error
was omitted In overruling the motion
for a new trial. No reversible error
las been shown"
Hotel Burns az Colon.
Colon. Dec. 1.-THE Central hotel
\ three-story brick building. was en-
tirely destroyed by fra and house
adioinirr was damaged. The loss Is