Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-07-23
new TRIAL ORDERED
FOR STANDARD OIL.
Court Of Appeals Sets Aside Famous
Verdict by Which the Company
Was Find ,240,000.

in the district court, must be retired.
The court of appeals differs with the
trial court on three vital points, hold
ing thar Judge Lands excluded evil
dence for the Standard Oil Co. OF In
diana, which should have been admit
ted to show proper intent in the rate
the company paid on oil; that he erred
in considering each car lot separate
Offense and that in imposing the max
imum fine for a first offense he abused
the discretion vested in his court. 1t is
strange doctrine, says the opinion,
wrere--,lnder $1,000 corporation such
as1the defon(ant-the Standard Oil Co.
of Inaiaru-may be fined 30 nine times
the amount of it's capital stock in order
to punish a defendant not even under
Indictment. BY this letter is meant the
of New Jersey.
This opinion, 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:
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
mcnt of the manner in which the case
was brought from the district court to
the court of appeals. Section q OF the
Interstate commerce act relating to the
publishing and filing of rates is quoted
and the opinion continues:
There are 1863 assignments of error,
taking up G7 pages of printed record
In view of the conclusion, however, to
which we have come it is unnecessary
to review many OF these assignments
the ones reviewed covering all the
propositions of law that we deem eS-
sential to the guidance of the district
court in the event of a second trial
COMPREHENSIVE stated, the assign
ments of error which we shall review
relate:
First-to the view adopted by the
trial court carried out in it's rulings on
the admission and exclusion of evidence
and embodied in its charge to the jury
that Il shipper can be convicted of ac-
cepting {: concession from the lawful
published rate, even though it is not
shown as bearing on the matter of
intent, that the shipper at the time of
accepting such concession. knew what
the lawful published rate actually was.
"Sccond--tO the view adopted by the
trial court that the number of offenscs
is the number of carloads of property
transported, irrespective of whether
each carload, the whole or the part
only of single transaction resulting
in a shipment and
'"rhird-whether in the imposition of
the fine named the trial court abused
the discretion vested in the court.
I'VE shall take up these subjects in
he order stated, the first being wheth-
or the shipper can, without error, be
convicted of accepting concession
from Il lawful published rate, even
though it 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-a REV of the law
that is embodied in the charge and
carried out in the ruling excluding GER
tain profo rred testimony, including
that of one Edward Bogardus. who be-
ing in absolute charge of the traffic
affairs of the plaintiff in error during
the period covered by the transaction,
offered to testify that during that pc
Rod he did not know anything about
an 1S-ccnt rate over the Alton Rail
road; that his attention had never been
called to any such rate by any person
or by the examination of any docu-
mcnt: and that it was his understand
ing and belief, based on what he was
told by one Hollands, tariff clerk for
the Alton Railroad, that the rate over
the Alton Road was six cents and that
such rates had been filed with the In
terstate Commerce Commission
"Hollands, who was called by the
government. had previously testified
that he had no recollection of telling
| Bogardus that the siX-ccnt rate ca com
mcdty ratc) had been filed with the
Interstate Commerce Commission But
answering on his voir dire, the jury be-
ing excused, Hollands further stated
that he regarded six cents per 100
pounds as the oil rate between Whiting
and East St Louis; that he regarded
certain application sheet which COW
cred Whiting and Chicago rates and
| the sheet for Chicago. taken together
| as showing Il SiX-cent commodity rate:
| that whenever he spoke of the rate on
this commodity between Whiting and
| East st. Louis he had in mind those
papers and that if he had been asked
| by Bogardus or anybody else whether
! there was a rate between Whiting and
| East ST. Louis he would have answered
| that there was and that it was filed
| and that such rate was six cents, which
! evidence thus preferred was excluded
| by the court for the sole reason that
as q matter of fact. as the court mot
the jury) fourd the fact to be, the APP
plication sheet containing this six
cent commodity rate had not been filed
with the Interstate Commerce Commits
| sion Had the court found as fact
| that the sheet had been SO filed, or sub
hitting that question to the jury, had
the Jury found that that sheet had been
SO filed the six-cent rate given to Bo-
gardus admittedly would have been the
lawful published rate"
| The court relates SHAT Rogardus was
offered rs a witness to prove that tariff
describing a rate of 6A cents from Whit
ing 10 East ST. Louis was issued by the
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co..
| n