The sun., 1910-05-03
NOW MUST GO TO TRIAL
q PRENE COURT DISWISSES
WRIT or GRROR.

P,ea NJ Immunity Net valid. Dec1slsn o..
BerAuse Ruling 60 Give Mril Vas
Ns' on . Fhhal Judgment-Case Of
sugar Trust serVetary % OR MAJ 80.
WASHINGTON. May ,. Charles r. Heike.
tscrstary Of the American Sugar Re-
hnng Company. whose trial with Ave
clerks on charges Of defraudinE the
Government out Of large sums Of customs
duties IN connection with the ialse weigh
ing Of imported sugar was deferred by
reason of his plea Of immunity. will have
N stand trial under q deciaiOn Of the
SIprsme Court to-day diminishing a
writ II errcr allowed him on the i'm
munty question The court alsO at the
suggestion Of solicitor General Bowers
On hehah Of the Government alsO directed
that the mandate oi tho court in the case
issue at once 10 that tho trial may pro-
cssi on May 10. TO which date il had been
postponed.
Hsike was indicted with five clerks
on January 10 last. and entered a plea
Of immunity from prosecution because
Of the testimony he had previously
gwen before the Grand Jury in proceed
nss under the sherman antitrust Law
- that Law provides. When his plea was
denied he withdrew Il and entered another
n not guilty. His counsel got from
Judge Lurton . writ Of error on the ques-
uon Of immunity.
The Government then took the unusual
course Of Aaking the supreme Court to
vacate the writ of error and the super
sedeas 20 that the trial might proceed.
setting up tho claim that the writ should
not have been allowed because the ruling
On the immunity question was not q final
Judgment or indeed any Judgment az all
Counsel for Heike then petitioned the
court 70 grant a writ % mandamua COM
pelling Judge jenkins of the trial court
10 enter judgment on the finding. which
was granted. The Governments motion
was denied. Later the Government
moved the court 20 dismiss the writ Of
error On the ground that no Anal judgment
N the case had yet been had.
Justice Day in delivering the opinion
n the court to-day said the right of
appeal was purely statutory and Congress
had provided that Il should lie only upon
final judgments % save the expense and
delays Of repeated appeals in the same
suit He quoted many decisions TO show
that cassa could not he brought 70 the
supreme Court pieccmeal and also cited
the words Of Chief Justice Waite that "A
decree "a final for the purposes of an
appeal to this court when Il terminates
the litigation between the parties on the
merits Of the Cass.and leaves nothing
to oe done but enforce by execution what
has been determined
4pphed % this aase he said the iudg-
msnt On the question Of immunity was not
4 final decree because Il still left unde-
termined the piilt or innocence of Heike
on rne cnRrge ii the indictment
Answering the contention Of counsel
that the complete immunity promised by
the law could not he kept unless the
person entitled q its benefits were saved
from prosecution as well as from punish
ment Justice Dsy said the statute was
not intended N give immunity from
prosecution hut 20 give one 90 accused a
shed against successful prosecution.
That promise % immunity, he declared.
had not changed the Federal system ~
appellate procedure nor did the immunity
operate % give a right of review on any
other than final judgment