The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-12-10
THE SHARP CASE AGAIN.

THE SHARP CASE AGAIN.
The full text OF the ruling Of Judge
Sanborn Of the Circuit Court, Eighth
District, in the Sharp case, has been re-
ceived by us through the courtesy of
Mr. 2. L. Williams of this city. In our
comment on Judge Sanborn IS decision
when it was first announced, we were
unable to sec how he could come to the
conclusion that he ought to overrule the
judgments of the District Court in favor
Of Mr. Sharp. 1t is easy enough to see,
however, from the full decision why
he does this. It appears that Mr., Moore
was the one who of his own motion and
without collusion with others, so far as
the testimony and the record show, de-
MED coal to Mr.. Sharp in the summer OF
1906 At that time, it Will be remem-
bered, thero was a rebate promised to
those who would purchase and store
coal during the summer so as TO avoid
n coal famine in the winter such as we
had had the winter before. This rebate
was TO be paid after August 31st, on
proof that the coal had been actually
bought at the current price and stored.
All who could make this proof were to
be repaid SOC a ton on the amount
then proved stored, Mr., Sharp, coal
dealer, undertook to give his customers
the immediate benefit of the soc reduc-
ton, and advertised to do so. He was
demonstrated with by Mr.. Moore, but
- l., .ca ant
making the offer, and then Mr.. Moore
shut off his coal supply and drove him
out of business. On this state of facts
the jury here found against tho Union
Pacific Coal Company, the Union Pa
cific Railroad Company, the Oregon
Short Line Railroad Company, Everett
Buckingham and Mr. Z. J. Moore, con-
sidering, evidently, as the public un-
derstanding is, that all were involved in
that refusal of coal to Mr.. Sharp. 1T
appears, however, that any proof of
collusion was lacking between the COM
panies named and Mr.. Moore, or even
between Mr. Buckingham and Mr..
Moore. The conference which was
shown 10 have been held between Mr..
Buckingham and Mr.. Moore was held
after Mr.. Moore had acted. and conse-
quently conspiracy to act could not
be proved from the fact of meeting
held after the action had been taken,
and this was the only meeting or con-
ference between the two that was shown
in the testimony and record.
f. ho
concerned, was not In collusion with
anybody, no connection between him
and the railroad companies was shown;
he was not shown, as a matter of fact,
to have acted with anybody else IN his
arbitrary course with Mr.. Sharp.
SO much for the record There was
nothing TO show a conspiracy. No con-
spiracy was proved. Judge SaDborn
goes very closely into this phase of the
case, and treats Mr.. Moore as acting
on his own responsibility throughout.
The common BELIEF, or we might almost
say the absolute certainty, that Mr.,
Moore did not act upon his own motion
or without consultation with anybody,
is absolutely wanting of proof in this
case. There was, then, nothing for
Judge Sanborn to do except what he
did do-corclude that there was no
proof of any conspiracy, and that Mr..
Moore, being alone guilty, he could not
conspirc with himself to commit the of
fense.
1t is curious outcome of situation
so well recognized ard understood here
We assume as a matter Of course that
the proof OF the connection Of Mr..
Moore with the other defendants of the
case was not obtainablo or it would
have been presented. Judge Sanborn
was very clear IN the proposition that
no conspiracy had been proved. And
so the case goes into history as one of
those that are so common, where what
everybody understands and believes can
not be established in court, through that
understanding and belief, but the al
legation must be supported by testi
mony and legally proved before judg
ment can properly be entered; which
proof cannot be had.