The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-24

|O|L COMPANIES
SCORE FIRST TALLY

Continued from First Page.)
Company; T. A. Williams, Of Norfolk,
for the National Oil Company, and
A. w. Patterson for the Richmond
OIL Company. Commemorative At
torney James w. Gregory had G. 5.
Sands TO assist him In the prosecu-
ton
Not Ready for Surprise.
Greatly to the surprise of the law
yers and the spectators the Common
wealth asked for a continuance of the
case on account OF the absence OF i'm
portant witnesses
This was stubbornly fought by the
counsel for the defendant companies,
all OF whom claimed that they were
ready to go to trial and anxious TO
50 into the case at once. Magistrate
Cheatham ruled with the request OF
the Commonwealth and continued the
case until Friday. March 81.
1t was generally thought that the
Commonwealth was ready, as the
charges were preferred more than
who reported the cases, appeared Wis
ibly nervous. The representatives of
the oil companies were smiling and
seemed we'll satisfied.
Defence Will Not Show Hand.
No intimation Of the line of de-
Tense to be offered was given out by
any of the counsel in the cases. They
say they are perfectly satisfied they
have violated no law and are entire
iy within their rights In selling the
oil In the manner they do. They say
in delivering the oil in the tank wag-
ons they are serving the dealers In
the most expeditions manner. and the
people In the most economic.
1t Ia claimed that IL the oil COM
panies compelled the dealers to buy in
| barrel lots that some OF the little
stores would be cut out of the business
and those handling the oil would be
put to greater trouble and expense.
and the extra cost would. of course.
come out Of the consumer.
The oil is sold only to dealers and
not to consumers, II is claimed, and
that neither the spirit nor letter OF
the law Is violated.
Tank System Always Used.
The tank wagon system of deliver
ing the oil has been In vogue ever
airce the companies established ware
houses in Richmond. and these are
the first charges that have ever been
made against the manner of disposr
ing OF the product.
There have only been two other
cases similar 10 these charges OF ped
akiu8 III Inv 6thtc-1A tAAAny ~saAf
IN both cases the decision went
against the Commonwealth. One of
these cases was In Accomac and the
other in Giles county.
Decision Favors Defendant
In the Giles county case the oil
company was represented by Eppa
| Hunton. Jr.. and Judge Phlegar. The
present Encouragement of Virginia.
| Samuel w. Williams. prosecuted the
case. The verdict was in favor of
the defendant company and the
! chs rges were similar to the cases in
Ewansboro.
A Near FfsticufY.
When the crowd was leaving the
court room. II Is alleged that Officer
George Jerrail and Driver Thorp, OF
one OF the oil wagons. came very
near to having blows. Captain Alex
| Wright was notified of the imminent
| proba bility of violation of the peace
and hastened to the scene Of the sup
| posed action. but all was quiet Driver
Thorp. II appeared. misunderstood
some remark that officer Jerrall
| made.
| threatened to take the driver Off his
| scat on the wagon. and the latter re-
| piled that no taking was necessary
| and that he would come down any
| time and any place.
In q peddiing case of cheese mer-
chant held last week. Attorney w
Kirk Mathews endeavored to show te
! the court that in making the arrest
| of his client Officer Jerrail was influ-
! enced by personal motives. the Law
| providing that the informant in such
/ cases is allowed half the fine. The
| minimum fine is 500 and each sale
constitutes separate offense. The
lawyer also enGeavored to show to the
court that Officer Jerrali approached
merchant and offered to pay hall
| the cost Of the cake OF cheese II hi
would buy It.
Millions i'm Fines.
/ Shonfd the cases go against this
| oil companies and the county endeav-
ors to collect all the fines that eould
! be imposed. It would amount to mil.
! lions OF dollars. Thousands OF sale,
| have been made. and the lowest pen.
atty In each Is $lo0.