The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1916-01-07
EARLY VERDICT
IN NEW HAVEN"
CASE EXPECTED
Closing Day of Three Months
Trial Consumed in Ad-
dress by Judge.
INTERESTING RULINGS
MADE ON LEGAL POINT
William Rockefeller Only
One of Defendants at Fin
al Session.

New York, Jan. IA verdict is ex-
pected before nightfaH in the trial
of the eleven former directors of the
New York, New Haven & Hartford
railroad, who have been on trial for
three months, charged with criminal
violation of the Sherman antitrust
law.
The charge of Judge Hunt covered
many legaN points in the case, end
his rulings were received with the
utmost interest. 4 At the conclusion
Of his address, the jury took the case.
William Rockefeller was the only
defendant not in court when Judge
Hunt began his remarks. The charge
against the defendants being a mis-
demeanor, their presence was not le-
ga1ly required. Charles S. Mellen was
in court sitting in the spectators box.
The court, after describing the in
dictment, first instructed the jury
that, the case should be considered
without regard to any testimony that
would indicate 'any attempts to in
fluenee legislation by bribery or cor
rupt means"
The Indictment contained no such
charge, he said. Discussing the Sher-
man act, he said that~it did not pre-
scribe a limit to acquisitions and that
large enterprises may in a certain
sense be permitted to monopolize COM
merce. Magnitude of business was
not in itself a. violation of law.
The court held that the charge also
could not be sustained unless the jury
was satisfied that the defendants or
any Of them 'intended to enter an
illegal combination Intent, he said.
was psychological and not to be as
certaineds by fixed rule of law. The
Jury would have to determine it by
facts and circumstances.
Judge Hunt Instructed the jury
that the so-ca11ed tripartite agreement
between the New York Central, the
New Haven and the New York &
Harlem in the early nineties was not a
violation Of the Sherman act.
The IL defendants are William Rock
efeller and Lewis Cass Ledyard. New
z York; Edward p. Rcpbinss New Hse-
ven: Charles r. BROKER, Ansonia,
Conn: D. Newton Barney, Hartford;
Robert w. Taft. Providence, r. +;
ChaFIes M. Pratt, Brooklyn; Henry X.
Stamford, Conn; James s.
A. Heaton- Robertson and
Frederick F. Brewster: New Haven.
They were specifically charged with
conspiring to monopolize the entire !
traffic of 5New E4 gland.
They were indicted in February 1915,
after an investigation by the depart
ment of justice begun more. than
year previous and the~ trial began on
Oct. 10.
Then other former directors were IN
dicted with them, of whom three made
pleas Of immunity, six OBJ
tanned a separate trial and one, George
MacCulloch Miller, was not brought to
trial on account of his age.
On the verdict of the jury in this
case would largely depend thef atti-.
tude of the government, counsel said
today, toward the six who gained a
separate trial. These aIse George r.
Baker, Th eodore N. Vail, Francis T.
Maxwell, T. Dewitt Cuy1er, Edward
Miilfgan and Alexander CockreH In
the event of an aequitta1 by the jury
it was not thought that the case would
be pressed against them.
The maximum penalty in event of
conviction is one year in prison or
$1,000 fine, or both.
The alleged conspiracy dated back
to July 2, 1890, the date of the enact
nent of the Sherman law, since which
Continued on Page ~