New Britain herald., 1915-11-30
Raises Doubt Regarding AdmisSi- biity of WeStCheSter Evidence
EXCLUDED FOR PRESENT
Counsel for Accused Argue That Road Was Not Projected for Carrying on Interstate Commerce By New Ha- ven System.

New York, Nov. 3O.--The defense at the trial of the eleven former di- rectors of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad company m der the Sherman antitrust law W m at least a temporary victory today when they succeeded in raising a doubt in the mind of the court as to the admissa bility of evidence pertain ing to the acquisition in 1907 of the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway company.
 Judge Hunt after listening an hour and half of argument an nounced that he was unable to dec1de the relevancy on the evidence with out further study and excluded it for the time being.
 Argument of Defense.
 The defense argued that the New York Westchester and Boston was not projected for carrying on inter- state commerce and was not acquired by the New Haven for that purpose. If the evidence is definitely excluded it will bear out testimony which r:.e government proposes to introduce in connection with steps taken to am nd the charter of the road which might bring out sensational revelation of political activity. Some of the Vest chester stock sold to the New Haven at prices alleged to have been excess sive is said to have been held by prominent politicians.
 This company had a charter for eighteen mile road which was built by the New Haven at a cost of $35,- 000,000, of which $11, 100000 was expended in acquiring the stock Of the company, the governm ent charges.
 Prevent Dangerous Competition.
 Although it's route does not extend beyond the limits of Westchester County, New York, the government contends that, under it's charter, it was projected into Connecticut for the purpose of operating a through line Into New England and that control was sought by the New Haven to prevent dangerous competition.
 R. V. Lindabury, for the defense, argued that the route set forth in the charter was relocated and that not only was the road not built be- yond the New York state line but was not so projected when the New Ha- ven acquired control. Therefore, the road was an intrastate corporation and they did not come within the purview of the interstate application of the Sherman law.
 Route Was Relocated.
 Frank M. Swacker, of federal coun- sel, said the government would show that when the charter was filed in 1872 the Westchester was projected to connect with both the New York and New England and with the Ridgefield and New York roads. These roads were some years later taken over by the New Haven and when, in 1904, the attorney said, 'the Westchester began again to show signs of life it's route was relocated in order to get another en route into Connecticut"
 we will show" he added, that not only was the Westchester pro- jected for interstate commerce but that it is doing interstate commerce now. It has an express contract for carrying on commerce anywhere in the United States and there is through ticketing of passengers"
 After an hour and a half of argu- ment, Judge Hunt reserved decision, requesting the government meanwhile to pass on to another phase of the case.