New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-31
SUGAR Jury D|SAGREES
AFTER THIRTEEN HOURS
Reports at Ills This Morning in
Case of John {. Parsons
and Others.
DEFENCE DISAPPOINTED
Expected Quick Acquittal-Stat
ute of Limitations Figures
Extensively in the
Deliberations.

After thirteen hours Of delberation the
jury this morning failed to agree upon
verdict in the case of John f. Parsons
the aged former counsel Of the American
Sugar Refining Company; Washington
/ b. Thomas, its president: Arthur Don
ner. treasurer. and George II. Frazier. =
director who were tried before Judge
Hand in the United States District Cour:
on the charge of having conspired
against interstate trade in sugar.
The jury reported to Judge Hand at
LID o'clock this morning that ii could
not agree upon a verdict. For long
time the ballot had been eight for ac-
quittal and four 70 convict; finally one
more juror was Won over by the larger
group.
John f. Parsons was the only defen-
dant not present to hear the final report
of the jury. having gone home at 6:lJ
Wearied with the long wait 1t is under
stood that the government will not at
tempt to seek another trial of the case.
The failure Of the jury to reach a
quick verdict seemed to be a deep dis.
appointment to the defence, which had
confidently predicted speedy and full
vindication Of the defendants.
When the jury filed out Of the court
room after having been charged by
Judge Hand expressions were heard
predicting the return of a verdict Of
acquittal within an hour. 1t was fifteen
minutes after noon when the Jury re-
tired for its deliberation. and when at
the end of the hour the Jurors were
taken to luncheon hope still prevailed
that verdict would be announced early
In the afternoon.
Time seemed to pass slowly, hour after
hour elapsed and there came no word
from the jurors. The group Of defen
dants that had been sitting in the court
room, surrounded by their friends and
attorneys, appeared to grow restless.
Mr.. Parsons. who had shown practically
no strain during his long examination
by Mr.. Nicoll and had passed
through a searching ross-examination
by the prosecutor without apparent ef-
feet on his physical strength, began to
show signs of WEAKNESS. And so did
Washington b. Thomas and the two
other defendants in the case.
Defence Expected Quick Verdict.
Speculation as to the possible attitude
of the jury proved an unavoidable topic
of conversation. The defence had dis
played from the beginning a deep faitL
I'm a speedy verdict of acquittal that
would prove a spleDdid vlndication for
the defendants. who, they said, had been
held up before the community since tho
return of the indictment in 1909 as vio-
lators of the law. With each quarter OF
an hour the possibility Of an absolutely
satisfying verdict seemed 10 recede more
and more.
The first indication of how the jury
stood on the matter did not come until
4:35 o'clock The foreman sent note
TO Judge Hand submitting two ques-
tions. and the judge ordered the jury 10
appear in the courtroom Amid a list
less silence Judge Hand read the ques-
tions put TO him by the jury and gave
his instructions regarding them.
The first question Of the jury was:
II We agree that the conception of the
loan az arranged between H. O. HaVa-
never and Kissel and Segal and its subse-
uuent completion, was an act In restraint
OF trade, but are In at least reasona Bile
doubt OF any criminal action or intent after
July |. 1896. are we justified In a verdict of
not guilty?
Judge Hand ruled that If they held a