Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-07-22
eRosscuP WROTE OPINION
Hundred and Sixty-Nine Assign
ments Of Error, Taking 81
Pages Printed Matter.
ONLY Three, Which Arc Held to Cover
The Whole Case, Are Reviewed
BY the Court

M Chicago, July 22.-By unanimou!
ri opinion OF the United States circuit
III court of appeals for the Seventh cir.
# cult the famous case of the govern.
~ ment against the Standard Oil com.
&& pany Of Indiana in which the latter
s was fined $29,241,000 by Judge Landi.
81 IN the district court, must be retired
vi THE court of appeals differs with
S. the trial court on three points. holding
NJ that Judge Lands excluded evidence
Z for the Standard OIL company of In
Il diana which should have been admitted
n 10 show proper intent in the rate The
n company paid ON oil: that he erred in
a considering each car lot separate OF
N Tense, and that in imposing the maxi
Il mum fine for first offense he abused
Il The discretion vested In his court. 1t
4 Is strange doctrine says the opinion.
Il Where under Sl,000.0Q0 corporation
such as the defendant the Standard oil
company of Indiana, may be fined %
times the amount Of its capital stock
III utder 10 punish a defendant nor
even under indictment. BY this latter
Is meant the parent company, the
Cii NOlhldlly OF New \ OTk.
4 rms decision, concurred in by
Judges Baker and Seaman. was de-
hFered here today by Judge Cross
cup, who wrote the opinion The
concluding sentence of the opinion
reads
The judgment of the IL lrict court
IS reversed and the case remanded
WIN instructions TO grant new
tlai and proceed further in accord
ance with this opinion"
The opinion begins with a brief
statement OF the manner in which tho
case was brought from the district
u court to the court of appeals.
section SIN OF the interstate com
lnerce act relating to the publishing
opinion continues:
\ There are l69 assignments of error
taxing up % pages of printed record
IN view oil The conclusion, however. tn
when we have come. IL is unnecessary
10 review many of these assignments
Inc ones reviewed covering all the
proposltlons OF law that we deem es-
Sentlal TO the guidance of the district
court III the event of n second trial
Comprehensively stated the assign
ihents OF error which we shall review.
relate:
ERRORS REVIEWED.
First, to the view adopted by the
tnai court carried out in its rulings ON
me admission and exclusion OF evil
dehce, and embodied in its charue To
tHe jury that shipper can be con-
Nlcted of accepting n concession from
lhe lawful published rate even though
II Is not shown as bearing on the mat
rr OF the intent, that the shipper al
me time, OF accepting such concession
anew what the lawful published rate
actually was.
secondly, to the view adopted by The
tllal court that the number OF the a.
4ehses IS the number Of carloads az
pIoperty transported, irrespective of
whether each carload, the whole or The
ptrt only of single transaction re-
suiIlns in a shipment; and,
q. lnlrd' whether in the imposition of
wv me named, the trial court abused
'"e discretion vested in the court.
ACCEPTANCE OF CONCESSIONS.
we shall take no these subjects in
the order stated, the first being whether
lne SHIPPER can, without error. he CON
NlSteu OF accepting concession from
ue lawfully published rate. even
u'ousn u is not shown as bearing on
we matter of intent, that the shipper.
s, INC TIME Of accepting such conces-
niolls knew what the lawful published
tate actually was-Ain view Of rho law
, No. u embodied in the charge and car
,, - put IN the ruling excluding certain
P.o"I.Su testimony including that az
ohe huWard Bogardus who being In
M ~ uhdrge Of the thafflc affairs of
iod .n',ai'es IN error during the per
10 tastis, ny the transactions, offered
ala n"t ,nat during that period he
cent rate over the Alton raiIroas ~.
une rate over the Alton road vac
EMS ana that such rates had boor
Hled with the Interstate ooI,,,, 49,,
commission. c"'h'lerce
HAD NO RECOLLECTION
Hollands, who was called nv tno
tbst hn b had previously testified
}ogar,1 n ~ no recollection of telling
ruus that the cent rate IA con-
modify rate) had been aled u'i,,, 'p IL
Interstate commerce commissio,, ~, Dr.
answering on his yoir dire M d., ~
!ns excused, Hollands furtho
mat he regarded cents per i0a ot"eJu
as the oil rate between whit p'uIins
'+osl SlV Louis that he rooar5o ~ NV
,,Italn application sheet, which ca,
49,, n "hltlng AT Chicago rates and ~.
eneel loi Chicago, taken tneatt. Nv
showing a six cents comnndl,,l, az
tnat whenever he spoke OF thn =, '"'r,
,.H commodity between Within pn
hdst ~. Louis he had I'm nina ailu
itlapers- and that If he had been , .1us1
tTS hogafdns or anybody else whetnD.
ttnele was rate between Whiting aNI
s.aAt ST. Louis, he would have a."
~, cred mat there was aud thai II ,,as
nra ana such rate was siX oon was
~,u,h evidence thus proffored was ~,
uueu by the court, for the sole reasoo
nt ~ matter OF fact, as the cont
ttu me jury found the fact IN hn
sW application sheet containing tbt,
ne cont commodity rate had not hccn
r'eu WIN the interstate comuerca
n t,, nm Had the court found az
~, iavt mat the sheet had been So fiIed
b,6 a|,hhnllltlnE that question to the ilrv
ii''u me Jury found that that sheet 'haS
poa 80 fled the six cent given ~
t ibus9Iaus admittedly would have boen
Wv ''"inl published rate.
A FAMOUS RATE TARIFF.
a me court related that Boeardus
y - onsred as witness TO prove thht
~ nm describing rate Of az cent,
is.,a Whiting 70 East 81. Louis vns
i,nN Isallroad company a ' eomn tin,
INV oer y 1895, and nied with The i ns