Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1916-01-10
For New Haven Defendants
Not Freed Jury Is Reported
10 Have Stood Eight to
Four for AcQuittaI,
PARTIAL AGREEMENT
AFTER FlFTY-0NE HOURS
District Attorney Says Men
Not Favored by Verdict
viii Be Tried Again at
Earliest Possible Date.
.y nos.,sa ,ooss.l srre,.. .s.sso wsN

irf hoNHlhn iouEHAL SPECIAL teAeso wiRp
New York, Jan. Six of the
eleven former directors OF the New
York, New Haven q Hartford. charg-
ed by the government with criminal
violation Of the sherman anti-trust
law. were found not guilty late today
by the jury that for nearly three
months has been trying the ease. The
jury disagreed on the five others.
Those Acquitted
Those acquitted were: ID. Newton
Rarney. Pennington, Conn. Robert
w. Taft. Providence, II. l.. James III.
Hemingway, A. IIeaton Robertson and
Frederick + brewster, New Haven,
and Henry X. MciIarg. Stamford,
Conn
Those on whom the jury disagreed
We're William Rockefeller, New York;
Charles II. Brooker. Ansonia, Conn.
Charles M. Pratt, BROOKLYN I.ewia
Cnss Lcdyard New York. and Edward
=. Robbins. New Haven.
Fffty-onc Hours Dclibcration.
The verdict was returned at 430
o'clock this afternoon after fifty-one
hours OF deliheration, and the jury
was discharged The final vote on
the five defendants upon which the
jurors could not agree stood 10 4 for
acquittal.
r. l.. Bats, chief counsel for the
government. announced that he would
move for new trial Of these five.
This will be done, he said. before any
effort will be made To try the six other
former directors Of the road that were
indicted but woh obtained the right
20 be tried separately. $
Instructed by Court.
Tho jurors did not reach their YER
dict until after they had reported tn
Judge Hunt earlier in the day that
they could not agree. Up to that time
--noon--they had been delberating
with a view TO bringing In q verdict
on the guilt or innocence OF the de
PENDANTS collectively. The court then
instructed them to make further eff
forts to concur and that II they could
not agree upon all. to try and reach
Il decision on some. The vote on the
question Of all at that time also stood
to 4 for acquittal, 1t was learned.
Six Freed Unanimously.
On returning to the jury room the
jurors renewed their discussion with
the court's Instructions in mind, and
unanimously eliminated the six de-
PENDANTS that were acquitted. Two
of the four Jurors who had voted
against the defendants originally
stood firm against Messrs. Hockefel
Ter, Ledyard, Brooler, Pratt and Rob-
bins Then the other two switched
TO their original position, leaving .
to us the final verdict.
Two Defendants Absent.
william Rockefeller. who IN i'll. and
Henry *. McHarg, were not present
when the Jurors filed into court. The
nine other defendants were In their
usual seats. With the entrance of
The jurymen with their hats and coats
in hand. presaging u verdict, the mem
tai state of the defendants was obw-
ously one of tense strain.
The court thanked the Jury after
the verdict had been announced, hut
hardly hnd he concluded when de-
PENDANTS attorneys and others IN the
were on their feet and
there was q general handshakIng.
Charles $ MeIlen. former president
Of the New Haven and the chief wit
ness In the case, was not In court.
Chief Issues Considered.
While they had discussed oil The
phases of the case, the
Jurors said, the chief issues Of debate
we're the matter of alleged suppress
sion by the New Haven of compete
ion, Of the Joy steamship line and
he acquisition Of the Boston a. Maine
by which the government
'h8rged the New Haven completed IT'S
of the transport traffic of
New England.
The so-called Billiard transactions
we're virtually ignored. the Jurors
hax la h.. at
most OF them ruled out in the charge
If Judge 1Iunt.
Regarded Not Pertinent.
There was also comparatively little
discussion on the Metropolitan steam
hip deal, the question being whether
{ was private transaction of Rob
,ins. or a Joint transaction Of all tho
Sew Haven directors. The Grand
Trunk also was not a pertinent issue.
WAS said.
The jurors explained that they had
ought to follow the instructions of
he court in his charge that they
hould decide first whether the al
eyed conspiracy. of which the de-
endants were accused. was In exist
nee in 1890. when the government
harged IL began, and was continuous
own to the date of the Indictment.
hey reached no agreement on this
uestion, they said.
As 10 Rockefeller.
OF the five defendants whose guilt !
r innocence was not decided. William {
rockefeller was thc only one whose
erm Of service ASIA New Haven di-
ector was continued throughout the =
ntire time of the alleged conspiracy
ie antedated Charles f. BroOker hy ]
hrec years. Messrs. Ledyard and q
raft TOOK part In the transactions
fhich led to the acquisition of thei
took OF the Boston & Maine in 1907
nd as directors of the latter road be- Z
anne directors Of the New Haven I
ihen the Boston a. Maine was taken a
yer. Edward u. Robbins was gem n
raj counsel Of the road and figured 4
l the Metropolitan steamship trans h