The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-26
THE SUGAR CASE
MUST GO TO JURY
Judge Hand Refused to Dis
miss Indictments on Mo-
ton of Defendants.

New York. March 26.-Judse Hand
in United States district court today
denied the motion of Delaney Nicoll,
chief counsel for the defense, to in
struct the jury to acquit John L. Par
sons, Washington Il. Thomas and
other directors of the American Sugar
timing company. charged with vio-
lation of the criminal clause of the
sherman antitrust law in closing out
the PENNSYLVANIA Sugar Refining COM
pany. The trial. therefore, will pro-
ceed
Judge Hand. who had reserved de-
clSlon on the motion several times re-
marked during the argument, which
was conducted for the defense by De-
lancey NicolI and James NJ. Beck, that
he agreed with points they raised and
announced that unless tt district at
torneN could convince him otherwise
he would instruct the jury to bring III
4 verdict Of not guilty.
This announcement was made in
connection with d point raised by Mr.
Beck in discussing tho s1.a50.0O0 loan
made to Adulph S"gal, promoter Of
the PENNSYLVANIA Sugar Refining con-
ranN. through which 1t is alleged the
sugar trust" obtained control of the
Segal plant. Mr. Beck pointed out that
the American Sugar Refining company
took collateral of a perishablc ma
ture" for the loan
In order to safeguard their coll
lateral and protect themselves fro1a
having the collateral impaired. they
specified that the plant was not to be
operated" said Mr.. Beck. for to do
so. theS figured. would have impaired
the plant. And. | think your honor
viii agree that the lenders had per-
fect right TO so order tho plant to close
for who would want their collateral
mad" useless or greatly reduced in
valuc'
II think YOU ar" right" said Judge
Hand. and unless Mr.. Misc can 9TH
erwlSe convince me, ] will instruct the
jury to acuuit."
District Attorney Misc character
iZ"d the contention of the defense as
absurd. asserting that the best proof
that the defendant consrircd to keen
the refinery closed and wanted to- keep
II closed WAS the fact that when Sam
ucl tntormayrr. acting for Sceal tried
tn hhv" the trust Civ" IT'S consent to
the opening "t the refinery, such per
mission was refused. tntormaycr told
the officials. ne pointed ont. that un-
less S"gal WAS permitted to open the
refinery. ho would never repay the
loan.
Knowing this" said the district at
torney. the trust would certainly
nave gwen their consent to the opcn-
'nE of tho refinery if they had wanted
TO get their money back and had no
interest in the opening af tho refinery.
But they refused to allow the refinery
to open
MIR. Beck directed large part OF
his argument to an attack on the Sher-
man antitrust law. under the GRIM
inal clause of which the defendants
We're indicted. He declared that the
court must cnns,rue the law as il was
conserued in 1908, when the alleged
conspiracy was entered into and not
as II is construed today.
I'm 1903 no lawyer regarded as ILL.,
legal or contrary to the Sherman law
such acts as arc charged in the indict-
ment" he said. The evolution of the
Sherman law has been IL greater blight
ON the industries of this country than
ever the civil war was. There is moth.
ing in the present Interpretation Of
the law as given in the tobacco and
standard oil decisions which applies
TO this CASE
Mr.: Nicoll, in his argument. placed
the blame for closing the Pennsylvania
refinery on the late H. o. Havemeyer.
former president of the trust" "He
arranged everything and issued all or.
dess. declared the lawyer