The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-07-23

Chicago. July 22-By unanimous
opinion of the United States circuit
court of appeals for the Seventh dis
trict, the famous case of the govern
ment against the Standard Oil COM
pany of Indiana, in which the latter
was fined $29, 240, 900 by Judge Lands
in the district court. must be retired.
the court of appeals differs with the
trial court on three points. holding that
Judge Landis excluded evidence for the
Standard Oil company of Indiana
which should have been admitted to
show proper intent in the rate the
company paid on oil: that he erred in
COM dering each car lot separate Of
Tense. and that in imposing the max
. imum fine for a first offense he abused
the discretion vested in his court at
Is strange doctrine" says the opinion,
.'whereunder a million dollars corpora
ton such as the defendant, the Stand
ard OIL company of Indiana. may be
fined twenty-nine times the amount OF
its capital stock in order TO punish q
defendant not even under Indictment
BY this latter is meant the parent COM
pany. the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey"
Unanimous Decision.
This decision. concurred in by Judges
Baker and Seaman, was delivered here
today by Judge Grosscup, who wrote
the opinion. The concluding sentence
of the opinion reads:
1.-THE judgment of the district court
is reversed and the case remanded.
with instructions to grant new trial.
and proceed further in accordance with
this opinion
The opinion begins with brief state
ment of the manner in which the case
was brought from the district court to
the court az appeals. Section OF the
interstate commerce act relating to the
publishing and filing of rates is quoted.
and the opinion continues:
Alleged Errors of Trial Court.
|! There are 1863 assignments of error
Talking up sixty-seven pages of printed
lrecord. In view of the conclusion, how
ever, 10 which we have come It is I'M
necessary TO revieH many of these as
sgnments-the ones reviewed covering
all the propositions of law that we
deem essential to the guidance OF the
district court in the event of a second
trial Complementary stated. the as
signments of error which we shall re-
view relate:
First. to the view adopted by the
trial court carried out in its rulings on
the admission and exclusion of evidence
and embodied in its charge to the jury
that shipper can De convicted OF &C
cepting a concession from the lawful
published rate, even though IL is not
shown as bearing on the matter of in
tent. that the shipper at the time of
accepting such concession knew what
Nthe lawful published rate actually was.
Secondly. to the view adopted by the
trial court that the number of the Of
lenses is the number of carloads Of
property transported. irrespective of
whether each carload was the whole or
the part only of a single transaction re-
sulting in a shipment: and,
Third. whether in the imposition of
the fine named. the trial court abused
the discretion vested in the court.
Matter OF Rebates.
1--WE shall take up these subjects in
the order stated, the first being wheth-
err the shipper can. without error. be
convicted of accepting a concession
from the lawful published rate. even
though il is not shown as bearing on
the matter of intent. that the shipper,
at the time OF accepting such conceS-
sion knew what the lawful published
rate actually was-in view of the law
that is embodied in the charge and car
ried out in the ruling excluding certain
proffered testimony. including that Of
one Edward Bogardus. who. being in
absolute charge of the traffic affairs of
the plaintiff in error during the period
covered by the transactions, offered to
testify that during that period he did
NOT know az. thing about an 1S-cent
rate over the Alton railriad; that
his attention had never been called to