Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1911-01-26
SANTA RITA CASE
IS REVERSED
Verdict in Lower Court Sus.
tained-'Charge of Anti
Trust Violation
PIERCE JUDGMENT SUSTAINED
Former Superintendent of Blind
Asylum Must Serve His
Term.

Ire supreme court WIS III SESSION
again today, the following being pres
ent, Chief Justice Pope, Associate Jus,
tees McFie, Parker, Abbott, Mechem,
Wright, Roberts; United States Attor
ney David J. Leahy, Attorney General
Frank W. Clancy, Deputy Marshal
Chaves representing Marshal Foraker
and Jose D. Sena. supreme cour,
clerk. The court disposed Of the fol
lowing:
Case No. 1916. United States OF
America appellee VS.. Santa Rita Store
Company, and the Santa Rita Mining
Company, on appeal from the United
States court, third judicial district.
Reversed.
This is the noted case in which
t Attorneys Harllee and Barnes and the
late W. B. Childers were, for the ap-
| pellants, and Major w. H. H. Lie
wellyn, special assistant to the at
torney general OF the United States
was for the appellee.
! The opinion is written by Associate
| Justice Merritt NJ. c.. Mechem and it
is concurred in by Chief Justice Pope,
Associate Justices McFie, Ira A Alb
| bott and Edward r. Wright. Judge
Parker having tried the case below
did not take part in the decision and
neither did Judge Roberts who was
not member of the court when the
case was submitted.
History of Case.
The appellants. the Santa Rita Min.
ing Company and the Santa Rita Store
J Company. were jointly indicted with
one John Deegan and one William
Young. for a violation of section 3,
Act of Congress, approved July 3, 1890.
chapter CAT, 26 Stats. at large, 209,
which is as follows:
! Sec. 3. (Trusts etc, in Territories
or District of Columbia, illegal)-
4 Persons combining guilty of misde,
meanOr. Every contract, combination
in form of trust or otherwise, or con
spiracy in restraint of trade or com
merce in any territory of the United
States x is hereby declared lille
= gal"
; The appellants were convicted
: Deegan and Young were acquitted
! The record shows that the appellants
are New Jersey corporations. Deegar
was the general agent and Young al
employe. The indictment charged
that the defendants conspired tC
coerce and compel the employees
lessees and tenants of the appellant
to trade exclusively with the Santa
Rita Store Company and as an over
act further charged that on the 10tt
Of January, 1905, the defendants or
dered the employees, lessees and ten
: ants of appellants to quit trading witt
: e. l.. Turner & Son of Santa Rita
= firm competing with the Santa Rita
, Store Company with the threat thai
any employe would be discharged anC
t any lessee would be refused re
: neWal of their lease who failed to com
: ply with said order.
Judge MeCnem DeClSlon.
In his decision Judge Mechem says:
There was no evidence that any Officer
or agent of either of appellants( othel
than Deegan) participated in or haC
knowledge of the acts of which com
| paint is made. Undoubtedly con
spracy might be formed by two cor
porations acting through agents, ye
there must be more than one agen
or more than one person actually en-
gagged in the formation of the con
spiracy. In this case a conspirac!
was not formed because of a lack o.
persons. Deegan could not conspirt
with himself; neither could two o.
, more corporations conspire alone b!
neans of Deegan. Had some othe
Wscer or agent of either corporation
participated in, or had knowledge of
= the scheme, then conspiracy nigh
have been formed between the two
defendant corporations. The union o
two or more persons, the conscious
participation in the scheme of two o.
& more minds, is Indispensable to al
' unlawful combination, and it canno
be created by the action of one mai
: alone. Per Sanborn, j., Union Pacific
Coal Company, VS.. United States 173
? Fed. 1877.
| The trial court should have sus
tanned the motion made by appellant
! for an instructed verdict.
81 For the foregoing reasons tn
: judgment of the lower court is re
: versed and remanded."
:. Case No 1853. Gustave Leusch
appellee, VS.. Fred G. Nickel, ct al
S appellants. Appeal from distric
t court of Bernalillo county Affirmed
= Opinion is by Associate Justice Johl
K R. McFle, and the opinion is cor
e Cured in by all the judges excep
(, Judge Abbott who tried the case an
did not participate.
The syllabus says:
0 Where in an action of attachmen
h the defendants enter into bond t
e pay whatever judgment may be reT
d dered in the cause the attachmen
t is thereby dissolved, as provided i
o subsection 225, chapter 1O7, Laws Q
= 1905, and all preliminary motions il
# regard to the proceeding on the a
o tachment fall with the attachment.
e "2. Where judgment is rendere
" for the amount of the debt for failur
n a