The Prescott daily news., 1908-07-23

JUDGE PETER s. GROSSCUP OF CHICAGO. dence adduced at the trial showed the company received rates one-third as large as other shippers were obliged | to pay. II was contended by counsel for the oil company that the rate was not secret, but the jury found other wise
 Judge Grosscup wrote the opinion and delivered it, Judges Baker and Seaman concurring in 1t. The opinion concludes thus: The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to grant new trial and proceed further in ac- cordance with this opinion.
 The opinion begins with a brief statement of the manner in which the case was brought from the district court to the court of appeals. Section 6 of the interstate commerce act, re- lating to publishing and filing of rates, is quoted.
 There are 169 assignments of error. It is unnecessary to review many of these assignments. Comprehensively stated, the assignments of error which the court reviews are:
 First, to the view adopted by the trial court, carried out in rulings on admission and exclusion of evidence, and embodied in the charge to the jury, the shipper would be convicted of accepting a concession from a law full published rate, even though 1t was not shown to have bearing on the matter intent, that the shipper, at the time in accepting, knew what the law f,.1 ,-hA hAI
 Secondly, to the view adopted by the trial court the number of of lenses is the number of carload pro- perty transported irrespective of whether each carload, in whole or in | part only, was a single transaction re- sulting in shipment; and
 Thirdly, whether the imposition of | the fine named, the trial court abused the discretion vested in the court
 Taking up the question as to wheth- CT each shipment constituted a sepa- rate offense by which interpretation of law Judge Landis imposed the larg- est fine in history on the Standard Oil company, the court says this:
 "The grist of the offense is the ac- ceptance of the concession, irrespec- tive of whether the property involved was in carloads, trainloads or pounds. Has the shipper fully and finally ac- cepted a concession when he has done nothing more than agree with the car rier on less than published and filed rates, to be paid for transportation of his property? Isit not necessary that transportation be closed by the act ual payment of a lower rate?
 l hn hot hn ch in first instance full rate to the carrier and afterwards received back part Manifestly the offense of accepting 8 rebate has not been committed until the shipper has taken back part oi the first money, whereby his property has been transported at less than the lawful rate. Proof that he agreed tC accept return of part of full rate stopping there-will not support an in dictment for accepting a rebate. Sucf agreement is not binding, and at any time before a complete conclusion tho shipper may repent and insist upor the carrier keeping the whole amount
 "The measure adopted by the tria court shows wholly arbitrary-had nc basis of any intention or fixed rule dis coverable in the statutes, and no other way of measuring the number of of lenses seems to have been giver thought"
 As to whether Judge Lands in i'm posing the monumental fine abused the discretion vested in the court, tho court asks:
 Gan a court without abuse of judi cial discretion wipe out all the pro paptV nf tba defendant hafnro ths court and all assets to which creditor.