The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-11
STANDARD OIL VICTOR IN CASE Goverpment Denied a
 Rehearing. # COURT SCORES LAWYERS Litigation WilI Go to Supreme
 Court. Petition to Reopen Matter of Reversal of Heavy Fine |. Refused
 in sn opinion of
 Panxency.

Chicago Nov. le.--The Governments petition for a rehearing of the case in which the United States Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial pany of Indiana $2e, ,240,000 for alleged relating was denied in the Court of Appeals today
 It is authoritatively stated that the Government will now attempt to bring the whole matter before the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari.
 In oyerruling the petition the court said:
 ~The petition for re-hearIng ques- tions the correctness of that portion or the opinion that relates to the trial judges statement in passing sentence. that he. was quite unable to indulge in the presumption that in this case the defendant was convicted of It's virgin cffense. The point of the pett- tion being that. in the use of the word defendant In connection with virgin offense, the trial court referred to the Standard oil Company of Indiana and not to the Standard oil Company of New Jersey, The trial court in pass ing sentence. expressly stated that the Standard oil Company of Indiana was but the nominal defendant. the Stand ard Ofl Company of New Jersey being the real defendant, and every word, almost of the trial court in arriving at it's conclusion respecting the sent once, related to the Standard oil Com pany of New Jersey and not to the Standard oil Company of Indiana; in- ciudIng the statement that the reYe- nues of the offender and the character of the crime. showed that they had q peculiar relation to each other--the revenues referred to obviously being the revenues of the Standard Oil Com pany of New Jersey--to per cent. on Si00, ,000, ,000---no revenues of the Stand ard oil being on record at all.
 j aAnd counsel for the Government plant tneir Justification of the nne up-- cn the showing of the revenues. not CT tic sgandafd oil, Company of Indiana, btst of the Standard oil Cou4pEny of New Jersey. But aa q suggestion that thAt iafa in tfe text of the optnios. .ha volved will be more clearly brought
 .si,he etitlon for a re-tearlng also oueatfons the correctness Of tue text of that portion of the petttiqn ta where n shipper Is guilty of accepting fl concession, even though 1t Is shown that the shipper at the time of accept ing such concession did not know what the lawful published rate actual ly was, the view taken by the trial couYt is said to be a view of the law that is embodied in the charge and carried out in the rulings. excluding certain proRered Testimony, including that of one Edward Bogardus--the point of the. complaint being that the testimony of Bogardus, as to whether he knew or did not know of an ls .,ent rate over the Alton road was not excluded"
 In closing, the Court of Appeals pays its respects to Attorney General Bonn parte, special assistant Attorney Gen- erai Frank B. Kellogg, District At. torney Edward. W. Sims. and special assistant United States Attorney James 1T. wilkerson whose tatnes were signed to the petition, in the follow
 acourts have the right to expect that counsel accustomed to practice in the courts of review, not only know the meaning of legal terms constantly in use in discussions and opinions of these courts but will not misuse such terms to spread this information re- specting a judgment that. in the na- ture of the case is bound 10 attract wide public attentions remark. the germaneness of which the bar of the country will perceive when we say that all that has to be done to obviate the objection made. Is to insert a clause so that the portion of the opinion ob- jected to will read view of the law that is embodied in the charge and carried out in the rulings excluding. 'as a result of the charge on that point the proffered testimony of one Edward Bogardus-the capitalized portion being the only words inserted"
 Immediately upon the over-ruling of the petition Distsict Attorney Sims ap- piled for a stay of mandate. which was granted thus leaving the case stiil before the Court of Appeals pend Ing the governments attempt to have the case taken before the Supreme Court on a writ of ceTtiorari.