The Mena weekly star., 1908-07-30
LONG LIFE ENDDFOR THE BEST NAVY FINE DID N0T HOLD DID COURT UNDR
JUDGE LANDS DID NOT EXCLUDE TESTIMONY FOR THE STAN
 DARD oiL COMPANY.
GOVERNMENT WILL DEMAND \ RETRIAl
Records Cited to Show That the Very Testimony Whose Exclusion Was Attacked, Was, in Fact, 1t Is Said Judge Grosscup's Opinion, 1t Is Said Differs From the Printed Record.

Chicago, July 24.-District Attorney Sims announced positively Thursday that a petition for rehearing in the case of the government against the Standard oil company of Indiana, de cided adversely to the government by Judge Grosscup and his associates in the court of appeals Wednesday, would be filed.
 MT. Sims received the following tele' gram from MT. Bonaparte:
 I feel that you and your assistants have done everything possible to protect the interests of the government and promote justice. I will write fully as soon as the opinion comes to hand
 That the opinion for rehearing will lay stress on two alleged errors in the quoted portion of the opinion oi the court is the generally accepted opinion of attorneys interested in the case.
 Chicago newspapers print parallel statements Thursday taken from Wednesdays decision and from the record of the original trial.
 This from Judge Grosscup's opinion
 and carried out the ruling. ex- cluding certain preferred testimony, in clnding that of one Edward Bogardus who, being in absolute charge of traffic affairs of plaintiff ip error of fered to testify that he did noi know anything about the 1S-cent rate over the Alton road: that his attention had not been called to any such rate b, any person. or by the examination of any locument, and that 1t was his under standing and belief based on what he wa: told by one Hollands, tariff clerk for the Alton railroad that the rate over the Al ton road was six cents, and that sucf rate had been flied with the interstate commerce commission.
 Following is the testimony of Bo gardus before Judge Landis as taker from page 423 of the printed record:
 The witness In response to question: by counsel for the defendant was permit ted by the court. over the objection o counsel for the United States, that tho evidence was incompetent and immateria and merely the conclusion Of the witness and not the facts, to testify as follows:
 During the years l have mentioned 1901 to 1905, I did not know anything about an 1S-cent per hundred rate on oi
  tween Whiting and East St. Louis in am tariff whatever. My attention had neve in any way been called to such a rate bl any human being, or by the examination If any document of any kind or charac' ter, or otherwise. During the period O time mentioned 1t was my understanding and belief that this 6-cent rate, regarding which have testified was filed with thu interstate commerce commission; that un ierstanding and belief was based on wha I was told in the Chicago & Alton offic' by MT. Hollands"
 During all that period of time in con nection with their shipment of oil over th' Chicago X Alton railroad by the Standari oil company of Indiana as it's representa- i've in that particular work l had no in 'ention to violate any lawfully established ,ate of the Chicago & Alton Railroad com aany. During all that time I believed ab -olutely that 1 was shipping the oil unde lawfully established and filed rate Is sued by the Chicago & Alton Railroa' company
 The Chicago papers also print an ex aerpt from the record that says tha where Judge Grosscup says that Judg' r.ands referred to the Standard Oi Company of New Jersey as no virgin fender, Judge Landis really referred "the defendant" namely, the Stan lard Oil Company of Indiana.
 The two points given. 1t is believed vill form the groundwork of the peti ton for a rehearing.