New Britain herald., 1916-01-07
Judge Hunt Spends Two and 0ne- Half Hours Delivering
 His Charge
CONSIDERED FAVORABLE
 FOR CASE OF DEFENSE

Whereabouts There Existed a Con-
 spiracy to Monopolize Commerce''-
 Government Fails. .''..-
 New York, Jan. 1.-The case against William Rockefeller and ten other former directors of the New York, New Haven and Hartf ord rail- road charged with criminal con- spiracy under the Sherman law, was submitted to the jury today
 The case was given to the. jury at 1:2G o'clock and before beginning their deliberations the jurors took lunch.
 Judge Delivers Charge.
 The case was submitted to them after Judge Hunt had spent two and a half hours in delivering his charge, which counsel for the defense said they considered favorable to their case.
 Eleven Defendants. '''''
 The eleven defendants are William Rockefeller and Lewis Cass Ledyard, New York; Edward D. Robbins, New Haven; Charles F. Brooker, Ansonia, Conn.,; D. Newton Barney, Hartford; Robert w. Taft, Providence, R. l.; Charles M. Pratt, Brooklyn; Henry K. McHarg, Stamford, Conn.,; James s. Hemingway, A. .Heaton Robertson and Frederick F. Brewster, New Ha- ven.
 They were specifically charged with conspiring to monopolize the entire transportation traffic of New Eng land. They were indicted in Febru- ary, 1915, after an investi gation by the department of justice begun more than a year previous and the trial began on Oct. 13. Ten other for mer directors of the road were in dicted with them, of whom three made successful pleas of immunity, six obtained a separate trial and one, George MacCulloch Miller was not brought to trial on account of his age.
 Six Get Separate Trial.
 On the verdict of the jury in this case would largely depend the atti- tude of the government, counsel said today, toward the six who gained a separate trial. These are George F. Baker Theodore N. Vail, Francis T. Maxwell, T. Dewitt Cuyler, Edward
  the event of an acquittal by this jury. it was not thought that the case would be pressed against them.
 The maximum penalty in event of conviction is one year Imprisonment Or $5,00O fine, or both.
 Dates Back to 1890.
 The alleged conspiracy dated back to July ?, 1890, the date of the enact ment of the Sherman law, since which the New Haven brought under it's control every railroad in New Eng land except ose owned by the Grand Trunk many steamship lines and some sixty trolley lines. In this way, it was alleged, it stamped out competition and was on the point, the government charges, of suppressing the competition of the Grand Trunk through a traffic agreement when the government in November, 1912, step- ped in and indicted Mellen and two Grand Trunk executives. The case against them was subsequently drop ped but it is largely upon this agree ment the principal alleged illegal act within the period covered by the statute of limitation, that the prose cution in this case, based its expec- tation of conviction.
 The trial has been a remarkable one in many respects. It has been distinguished by the wealth and prominence of the defendants and for the fact that, for the first time have the directors of a railroad been brought to trial under the criminal clause of the Sherman law. The defendants have been represented by nearly a score of the noted lawyers, against whom the government mar shalled four headed by R. l.. Batts, former law partner in Texas of Attor- nev General Gregory. It has been estimated that in counsel fees and ex- penses of the New Haven, stenogra- phers' fees, etc, the cost of the trial has reached well over half million dollars. One witness was brought from the Pacific coast, another from Brazil at the governments expense.
 NeIlen Notable Witness.
 While not a record in length, the trial was remarkable by the fact