The sun., 1916-01-10

the question OF conspiracy. Tnat ne
considered fundamental II they decided
that conspiracy existed on the part
Of the New Haven board to monopolise
transportation. then they could proceed
to the next step. But II they did not
believe there was conspiracy their
labors ended right then and there But
that was Just tho rock upon which they
split Eight believed there was not
conspiracy, four were equally convinced
that there was one.
That was the way they had Joined
issue until they entered the court room
yesterday noon, apparently hopeless OF
reaching any conclusions. When Judge
Hunt told them they might reach ver-
dict As to some and disagree as to 9TH
ers II required only = few hours TO
roach an agreement.
Nearly all were agreed that the Joy
Line purchase was largely the deter
mining factor. The Jurors favoring con-
v1ctton contended that = conspiracy to
monopolise was shown by the testimony
Of Frank N. Dunbaugh, who sold the
Joy Line to the New Haven. and by
the Haskins letter in 1901. 1t was
about tho Joy Line that iaskins wrote
that the New Haven was going to hang
the hide Of the Joy Line men to dry
on the Long Island shore.
Ask to See Letters.
The Jurors requested all the letters re.
lating to the Joy Line on Friday after.
noon. when they also asked TO hear again
the Judges charge concerning the Sound
lines agreement. the tripartite agree
ment and the so-called corsair agree
ment. Tho court had ruled that the
tripartite agreement might be taken to
Indicate q frame Of mind. Tho Jurors
also said those who favored conviction
were Influenced by the Boston and Maine
acquisition that thcy did not consider
tho Billiard deal and considered the
acquisition OF the New England Rail-
road a legitimate enterprise. Incident
ally II was learned that the men who
held out for conviction on the conspir-
acy charge did not place much credence
In the defence witnesses. The stories OF
Mr. Ledyard and Mr.. Pratt did not Inn
One interesting phase OF the jury de-
bate was this: Yesterday afternoon
when the deadlock was At It's most
hopeless stage two Of tho four men
who had held out for conviction. Flint
and Hartman. tried TO lead a stampede
to make the acQuittal unanimous, but
the two others would not follow and
| consequently Flint ana Hartman re-
turned to their original stand. In all
eighteen ballots were taken. The hrst
three resulted In "a split three ways. but
from the fourth up to and Including the
seventeenth ballot eight held for acQuit-
tai and four for conviction.
II was difficult to obtain the views Of
any OF the former directors. but follow.
ing are the meagre expressions OF thoss
who talked:
IT am stiil in the boat, but I haven't
anything 10 say."-Charles +. Brooker.
Lewis Cass Ledyard Uo an inquirins
reporter)--"Did you ever see me be-
forey' Yes. but imagined you might
want TO say something on this occa-
! SION" Young man. don't let your I'm
agination have toosmuch rein
Judge Robertson-'T am mighty glad
| II came out this way"
w. w. Miller, counsel for Robert W.
, Taft am delighted with the ver-
dict. but as a philosophical observation
| think this case illustrates the fact
that no Jury m capable of disesting evil
| dence such as there was in this case.
or the eleven men who faced trial
! on the conspiracy charge only two
Rockefeller and Brooker. two OF those
; upon whose cases the jury could not
| period from July, 1890, to September
J 1902. Barney became a director IN 1909.
Taft in 1904. Hemingway IN 1905. Led
, yard. Pratt. Robinson, Brewster. Nc.
/ IIarg and Robbins In 1907. II Is signlf.
! cant that with the exception of Brooker
, all the Connecticut directors were ac-
quilted. Taft Is from Rhode Island
! The Government contended that al
| though some OF the accused directors
came in later the alleged conspiracy was
continuing.