South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1916-01-10
Ne W HAVEN JURY
IN SPLIT VERDICT
ACquitS Six Men But Fails to
Agree as to the Other
Five.
Associated Press Service


with criminal violation OF the Sher-
man antitrust law. were found not
guilty late sunday by the jury that
for nearly three months has been
trying the case. The jury disagreed
on the FIVE others.
Those acquitted were y. Newton
Barney, Pennington. Conn. Robert
w. Taft, Providence. r. l.; James
s. Hemingway. A Heaton Robert
son and Frederick F. Brewster. New
Haver. and Henry X. McHarg
Stamford conn.
Those on whom the jury disagreed
were William Rockefeller. New
York; Charles +. BROKER, Ansonia.
Conn; Charles NJ Pratt. Brooklyn;
Lewis Cass Ledyard. New York. and
Edward d. Robbins. New Haven.
Deliberate ST Hours.
The verdict was returned at 4.3O
o'clock Sunday afternoon after 81
hours OF elaboration. The final vote
on the five defendants upon whom
the jury could not agree stood 10
for acquittal
r. l. Bats. chief counsel for the
government. announced that in due
time he would move for new trial
OF these FIVE, before any effort will
be made 70 try the six other former
directors OF the road, who were in
dicted. but obtained the right 20 be
tried separately.
The jurors did not reach their
verdict until after they had reported
70 Judge Hunt earlier in the day
that they could not agree.
The court then instructed them 10
make further efforts 10 concur, and
II they could not agree upon all TO
try and reach a decision on some.
The vote Of the question Of all at
that time also stood 10 for &C
quital, II was learned
Upon returning TO the jury room.
two Of the four jurors who had vot-
ed against the defendants originally.
stood firm against Messrs. Rookie
Teller. Ledyard, BROKER. Pratt and
Robbins.
Two Others Switch.
Then the other two switched 10
their original position, leaving 10
4 as the final verdict.
From the time the case was sub
mitted To them at 1870 o'clock Fri
day afternoon the jurors took IS
hallots. The first stood six for ac-
quital. four for conviction and two
blank II was not until Saturday
that they reached the TO align
ment
william Rockefeller. who is i'll,
Henry X. McHarg and Charles S
Mellen. former president of the New
Haven and the chief witness in the
case, were not in court when the
jury reported it's verdict.
While they had discussed all the
principal phases OF the case. the
Jurors said the chief issues Of de-
bate were the matter Of the alleged
suppression by the New Haven of
the competition of the JOY steam
ship line and the acquisition Of the
Boston and Maine railroad by which
the government charged the New
Haven completed its monopoly of
the transportation traffic Of New
England.
Tried to Follow instructions.
The jurors explained that they had
sought TO follow the instructions of
the court in his charge that they
should decide first where the alleged
conspiracy. OF which the defendants
were accused. was in existence in
1890, when the government charged
IL began. and VIZ continuous down
TO the date of the indictment. They
reached no agreement on this ques-
ton. they said. The participation of
one OF the defendants IN the New
Haven's effort 20 prevent the sale Of
two steamships 90 the Joy line was
a subject. II was said. Of sharp de
bate.
or the five defendants on whose
innocence was not decided. William
Rockefeller was the only one whose
term OF service as a New Haven di-
rector continued Throughout: the en-
tire time OF the alleged conspiracy.
He ante dated Charles r. Brooker
by three years. Messrs. Ledyard and
Pratt took part in the transactions
which led 10 the acquisition OF the
stock OF the Boston and Maine in
1907 and as directors OF the latter
road. became directors OF the New
Haven when the Boston and Maine
bins was general counsel of the road
and figured in the Metropolitan
steamship transactions which. ac-
companied by the formation of a
number Of alleged dummy corpora
tions resulted in the transfer of the
steamships Harvard and Yale 20 the
Pacific coast.
Others little Mentioned
The other directors were little
mentioned in the evidence and their
chief defense was that they depend
ed upon the advice OF Charles =
Mellen or Edward n. Robbins in the
acts charged against them. which
virtually consisted Of casting their
votes in favor OF propositions that
came before the board of directors
for approval
The jurors We're unkempt and
weary when they arrived at the fed
eral building this morning from the
uptown hotel, where they had been
quartered at night. None OF them
had for two days been given an
opportunity 20 shave or TO obtain
clean linen.
The defendants were indicted on
Feb. 20, 1915. The trial began oct