Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-10-18

cradle time. lie suggested mat the
witnesses who had been summoned DO
relieved from attendance upon ihe
court Tor the present. Judge Barham
excused the Witnesses until Wednes-
day morning az 10 o'clock, the under
standing being that II would be impos-
si5le 20 conclude the argument before
that time.
Captain Berkeley wanted TO know
whether or not the defendants wonld
be in court when the tndge ruled on
the demurrer. After some Discussion
Mr. Batehelcr promised that the de-
tendanis would not leave the cOIrt
unless excused by order OF the judge.
Grounds For Demurrer.
Mr. Batchelcr opened the argument
on the demurrer and motion To quasn.
He said that the defense demurred
and moved 10 quash on the same
grounds. In brief. the grounds were
as follows:
Tho warrants dc not show that The
defendants were in the insurance bus
Ines in this city or that they had.
mower 10 control rates for insurance
here. the warrants do not show that
the defendants had a monopoly OF The
insurance business. or that the people
n the city could not have their prop
city insured with companies other
than those represented by the defend
ants: the warrants are not sufficient
~ specific in making The charges,
against the defendants, and, faaily,
IN any event an agreement to control
rates of insurance does not CONSTITUTED
AN indictable Offense.
Mr. Bachelor tied numerous au-
th0rlties to support his contention that
the warrants are not properly drawn,
and then launched into discussion
Of his final contention tnat an agree
ment to control rates of insurance does
not constitute an indictable ofense.
In arguing this last point he prac-
tically was arguing he case OF the de-
PENDANTS, the principal problem in,
viewed in the pro- ecution being that
very question, is an agreement to-
control rates of insurance an indict-
able offense?"
Many Authorities Cited.
In support of his contention, Mr..
Batcnelor cites numerous authorities.
all of which were used In the police
court hearing. He relied chiefly on
the ca e of Paul VS.. Virginia. in which
the United States Supreme Court held
that the insurance business is not com
merce,s and decision by the Ken
lucky Supreme Court. holding that
there + no common law in Virginia or
Kentucky against such combination
as is alleged In this case.
In closing Mr.. Bachelor laid stress
upon the enactment and repeal of the
Wharton differentiation law. He de-
claied that by repeating the Whar-
Ton law the legislature Of Virginia
practically invited the Southeastern
Underwriters TO come back into the
State and do business. and that it
would be an unheard OF act for the
ccnts OF the Safe to sustain such
prosecution as this in view OF this fact.
When Mr.. Bachelor closed court adj
jOurned until 10 o'clock this morning.
One of the prosecuting attorneys VIII
begin a reply at that time All OF the
attorneys probably will be heard on
he demurrer and motion to quash.
and il Is not unlikely that the argu-
ment will be unfinished when court
adjourns tonight.
Another Skirmish.
In the event the court overruIes their
legal contentious, counsel for he de-
PENDANTS will ask that jury be drawn
from Sutside Of Newport News. The
commonwealth viii oppose this and
then an argumentSon tn point VIII
follow. II the case finally comes TO
trial on It's merits it hardly can be
concluded In less than fu.., rroo.l.r