New-York tribune., 1909-12-11
AMERICAN ICE co.
DECLARED GUILTY
JURY OUT ONE HOUR
and FORTY MINUTES.
Justice Wheeler Imposes Fine
of $4,000 for Creating
a Monopoly.

Inc jury IN tne tri8l or rne American
Ice Company for violation Of the anti
monopoly law reported To Justics
Wheeler. in the Criminal Branch Of tbs
Supreme Court. at $50 O'Clock yester-
day afternoon. that IL had found ver-
dict Of guilty on the first and third
counts OF the indictment.
By It's verdict the jury convicted the
defendant company for doing an acc
pursuant T.. and in and toward. and for
the consummation OF an arrangement
whereby competition In the product
and sale OF ice was or might havs
been restrained or prevented" az
charged in the first count. and OF at
tempting to create a monopoly. and OF
doing acts for the consummatton
thereof. as charged in the third count
The court withdrew from the considera-
tiOn Of the jury the second count. which
charged the defendant company with
making the arrangement az the time ot
it's Incorporation.
After the verdict was announced John
b. Stanchfield. chief counsel OF tbs
American company. moved for an arress
of Judgment and a new trial Justics
Wheeler denied both motions and an
nounced his sentence at once. a fine ot
$4,000 This was done that the defend-
ant company might take the case imme-
diately to the Appellate Division
A QUICK DECISION.
The trial was strung out over a periof
Of nine weeks. but the jury required only
one hour and forty minutes 10 agree on
a verdict. Justice Wheeler thanked thsI
jurors for the careful attention they hads
given to the case. the first under this
DonneIy law. which has been on ths
statutes since 1890. James W. Osborne.
who has done most of the work OF this
prosecution. and his assistant. Rogers
Clarke. Deputy Attorney General. wers
heartily congratulated. and only Mr.
Stanchfield and Thomas r. Adams, ths
American cOmpany's counsel. stood
apart Wesley M. Oler. president of ths
company was not in court. and when
informed by The Tribune that the jury
had found against his company said
that he had nothing TO say. and in y
tired voice added something that sounds
ed like II don't care"
Justice Wheeler occupied an hour and
a half in reading his charge to the jury.
The defence had put in nearly one hum
dred requests bearing on every phase
OF the trial. but Justice Wheeler ignored
the majority Of them. charging the re-
mainder with the reservation that IL was
for the jury to determine what bearing
each act may have had in an attempo
TO create a monopoly.
MONOPOLY DEFINED.
He defined monopoly as follows:
The monopoly condemned by the statuta
need not be a complete and absolute one.
excluding all cOmpetition-a completes con-
troI OF the production and sale OF a COM
modify.
ated where. as the result OF effort 20 that
end previously competing businesses are
81 concentrated in the hands OF single
or corporations acting together. that they
have power practically TO cOntroi prices
of commodity. and thus suppress compe-
titiOn.
a monopoly exists where all or nearly all
OF article OF trade or commerce WITHIN
a community or district is brought within
the hands of one man or set OF men. or or
a corporation or set OF corporations, sctinS
TagIigr TfegesIRiSp ST so STod9cTion Sr Of commaditv
within such single control 70 the exclnS'o"
OF niJ he Jefendant efrect or attempt to
make such an arrangement Ir so. ~ Nin-
lated the statute in attempting 10 GREATS
and maintain "A monopoly.
And right at this point we may. win
perfect prOpriety. say and charge YOU thet
the attempt TO create one. need not covs-
the entire territory of the Borough OF Man.
haitian.
ICE OFFICIALS RETICENT.
An effort was made as soon as the ver-
dict was announced 10 obtain statements
from the company and it's officials and
directors. Although The Tribune wss
the first with the information in each
case. the invariable reply was. Nothing
10 saw" Mr. Oler has already been
quoted: John r. Bennett. secretary ot
the American. said that the company
would issue no statement. and Percy
Rrundage. a director. said that beyond
expressing his surprise at the verdict. hs
had nothing 20 say. but he added that
the directors had been confident all along
that the company would be acquitted. be-
cause they felt that there were no
grounds for the indictment Mr.. Brun-
dage thought that the jury had not dons
its duty in using only an hour and forty
minutes to consider testimony that had
consumed nine weeks in the taking
Although the dissolution OF the cor
poratiOn is not provided for. IL il ex-
pected that the effects of the conviction
will be farreaching. Mr.. Stanchfield said
in his summing up that the stockholders
and bondholders would be the real suf-
ferers. II was said yesterday that the
civil suit brought by the Attorney Gen.
eraI for the dissolution of the corporation
would not be affected by the verdict.
The present indictment was found IN
June. 1905. after two previous grand
juries had refused TO indict. None of
the officers of the American was in
dicted.