Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-03-07
TROUP CONTINUES COAL CASE
ovsrrules Motion Of Defense to Stop Tria
on Techinal Point
INDICTMENT FAULTY tUT tFFEcTN
one Count f. Knocked Dat, bat Eight
Others stand Ms Alleging
the Commission of n
Crime.


Judge Troup sustained the objection Of
the defense in the coal mems case yesterday
so far as 1t referred to count No of the
Indictment, which he considered entirely bad
because it alleged no act done by the de-
PENDANTS in restraint Of trade. He over
ruled the objection Of the defense regarding
the other eight counts. The trial pro.
ceeded accordingly.
In giving his opinion Judge Troup said:
1T is a rule in this court that when one
judge has passed upon given question
another judge shall not interfere with his
holding unless 1t appears utterly fragrant
and wrongful. 1 am strongly inclined to
think this is no such case and that the
holding of Judge Sutton in the motion to
duash the indictment in the former coal
case holds here. This indictment is not
In the best logical form 1t would be
bold judge who would pronounce tia
model. That it could be greatly improved
by redraft am convinced.
THE case before us, however, has a
noticeable feature which takes 1t out of the
ruling of the federal courts on cases ap-
parently similar. While the federal statute
does not define absolutely what a trust is,
our Legislature has undertaken to state
just what a trust is in this state. This
best FORM contains valid and definite
charges of what are the illegal acts com
planned of.
THE question at issue here being but
little touched on in precedent, It behooves
us to approach 1t coolly and dispassionately.
1t must not be tried by rant and storm, nor
yet by Indifference"
Argument Lasts Long.
The argument in the coal case on the
motion of the defendant, James A. Sunder-
land. to have the case dismissed because
the indictment does not allege crime was
| completed Wednesday morning after II
o'clock Judge Troup adjourned court then
until 1880 in the afternoon to give him time
to consider the matter, and rendered his
decision upon reconvening court.
1t was largely a technical point on which
the defense sought to have the case dis
| missed. w. j. Connell argued upon the
point that the indictment names the agree
ment entered into at the time of the for
nation of the coal exchange as being the
crime. This agreement he pointed out, was
made and signed by the members of the
exchange more than three years ago and
therefore is barred by the statute OF
limitations.
He further contended that an agreement
to do thing is not absolute and pointed
out that no overt act on the part Of the
/ coal men is alleged.
| In an examination Of the constitution and
bylaws Of the coal exchange, Mr.. Connell
| found further ground for technical OBJ
jections. Soliciting is prohibited. 4. .ts.
Soliciting for what7" demanded Mr.
Connell. us it prohibited to solicit man
to take drink. or what does this mean!
When the indictment states that this
organization prohibited soliciting for coal
1t is a pure inference, for there is no suca
statement in the constitution or bylaws
Mr.. Connell bemoansd the fact that the
state had set up straw man. to be
battered down and that the county would
be put to great expense and much time
would be consumed.