The Detroit times., 1912-03-15
BATHTUB JURY DISAGREESj
TRIAL COSTING DEFENDANTS
100000 TO BE REPEATED
Despite Courts Charge, Prac-
tically Instruction To Acquit,
Five Vote For Conviction
CRITICISM FOR JU ID G. r
CRITICISM FOR JUDGE
Government Attorney Grosve-
nor Complains Bitterly of An
CELLS Rulings and Charge

After celebrating from 1880
o'clock Thursday morning until S:Id
In the evening, the jury In the cast
of the United States government
against the members of the bathtut
trust charged with a violation OF the
Sherman law in restraining trade, lie
ported disagreement.
Judge A. c. Angel accepted the
report and released the jurors from
further service i'm the case. They
lad intlmated earlier in the day that
they couldn't agree, but the cohr;
urged them TO continue their delibera
tons. The jurors asked at different
times for instruction on various points
and for the reading OF portions OF me
testimony relating to meetings held
by the defendants in connection With
the formation of their organization
Every ballot showed seven for &c
quittal and five for conviction. The
division was as follows:
For cquittal-George w Barnes,
liveryman, Leonard. Oakland county;
Writ Cornwell, banker, Ann Arbor;
John Doherty, farmer, Orchard Lake;
John W. Plies, real estate dealer, De.
troit; Fred Reisig, vintner, Monroe;
w. +. Robinson. insurance agent Dc
troit; C. +. Watson, farmer, Inlay
City.
For conviction-D. +. Chestnut fire
insurance agent, foreman OF jury,
Hillsdale; Henry Leonard, watchm&n,
Lansing; William J. Ready farmer,
Carrolton; Carl l.. Robson, motor
man. Ann Arbor: John Stone, farmer.
Washtenaw,
The general impression was tEat
the defendants would be acquitted, IN
view OF the attitude of the court dur
ing the trial and in his charge. Judge
Angel intimated that there was little
evidence TO warrant a conviction and
in charging the jurors said that IL
would be shocking" to convict men
whom they believed TO be innocent,
Just 10 serve as an example. The
jury's failure 70 take the courts view
of the case caused much surprise.
Edwin p. Grosvenor, who conduct
ed the prosecution. feels that the dis
agreement is victory for the gov
eminent, declaring in effect, that a
conviction was not expected. in view
of the rulings and charge of the court.
Mr. Grosvenor, in statement, says:
"In view Of the rulings of the court
during the trial, and the charge OF
the court ar the close of the cas-,
the government could expect no other
outcome
I'm the first place, although the
government had charged that the
conspiracy was continuing one, the
court would not allow us to introduce
evidence showing the carrying out OF
the conspiracy, the court holding the
conspiracy was completed when the
fna, agreements were signed This
ruling barred out of the case all the
evidence showing the oppressive
character of the combination. In the
second place, the court in effect held
there was no conspiracy until the
final agreements were signed, and
that the evidence given by the gov
eminent of what the defendants were
doing during the two months before
they signed the final agreements, and
when they were working upon the
plan. was not evidence OF conspiracy.
"On the other hand, the court al
lowed the defendants to 20 back
period OF two years to show acts oc-
curing prior to the formation of the
and commented on these
acts in its charge TO the jury. al.
though the government was not al.
lowed TO go back more than two
months The court in fact held that
there is no conspiracy until the final
agreements are signed, and no con-
spiracy thereafter: that conspiracy
is meeting at certain day In