Greenbrier independent. [volume] (Lewisburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1980, 1920-06-18

FINED FOR PHOFl1EERING,


From the Charleston Gazette we
get the following report Of the
trial of charge in the Federal
District Cour! at Charleston. last
week, against Sehon Stevenson &
Co. wholesale grocery corporation
OF Huntington-tfe oifense charg-
ed in the indictment being an un-
reasonable charge for sugar in yio-
lation of the Lever Act of Congress.
The jury had brought in Il verdict
OF guilty when on the afternoon of
the 10th District Attorney Lon II.
Kelly moved tho court for Judge
ment. Herbert Fitzpatrick, of coun-
sci for defense. moved for arrest of
judgement as 10 four of the Is
counts in the indictment, and to
set aside The verdict as being con-
trary to the law and evidence. The
iirst motion was granted and the
second denied.
Judge Pritchard then imposed a
line OF $4,000, or $4,000 on each
OF the 10 counts sustained. After
passing sentence the court said that
mad The officers of the corporation
been indicted ii would have been
his duty to inllict prison sentences.
The Huntington grand jury indict-
Ell the corporation but none of its
officers.
The defendant was allowed by
the court &C days in which to per-
feet an appeal.
This was hotly contested case
OF nearly three days duration. 1t
was featured by the conflicting cf-
lorts OF brilliant array of legal
talent; the unusualness, for This
district, at least, of the question at
issue, and continuous crowd of
spectators which included MANY
prominent wholesalers, retailers
and other men of business and 3f-
fairs.
Cndisputcd evidence showed
that the defendant company on four
carloads and 25,000 pounds of
sugar purchased the last of ApriI
and the first of May, 1920, made a
profit of over $4,000. The defense
relied upon its contention of re-
placement. or market values to sus-
lain its position that the prices
charged for the sugar were reason
able and in keeping with accepted
business practices.
The sugar in controvcrsarv was
at profit Of Approximately 100
per cent On the cost prices, but on
the basis Of replacement values, as
testified TO by the defense, the mark
up would have been reasonable.
The sugar in the case was brought
| at maximum of IS cents a pound
ana sold at top price of 81 cents
Some of it cost less than 18 cents.
The market prices of sugar at
The time of the sales, according to
testimony of the defendant, were
as high as s27.90 per 100 pounds,
and it was practically impossible
to buy much of the commodity at
any price.
Judge Pritchard, in his instruct
ions to the jury, knocked the props
from under the replacement value
contention, ad thereby eliminated
from the jury's consideration much
OF the evidence. He instructed that
replacement prices were not involv-
ed in the case. He cautioned The
Jurors to free their minds of any
prejudice against profitccring which
may have been formed, and TO be
guided wholly by the law and the
evidence.
The closing arguments to the
jury were made by District Attor-
ney Lon Fl. Kelly and his assistant
Joseph n. Kenna. for the govern
ment, and Herbert Fitzpatrick, of
Huntington, for the defense. Mr..
Kenna did the first suInming-up
and Mr.. Fitzpatrick followed him.
In the concluding argument for the
government. Mr.. Kelley was un-
pairing in his criticism of the de-
fcndand company.
"lf you say by your verdict that
at a time when the burden of the
people is almost unbcarable, be-
cause Of the shameless prolitecring
in the ncceSsarics >of life, this de-
fcndant was justified in charging
a profit Of 100 per cent on sugar.
Then we might as well let down the
bars TO the proiitccrs in West Vir-
8inia and permit them TO run en-
tirely wild. If the wholesaler is
permitted TO make 100 per cent
profit on. sugar, then the retailer
should not be denied the same priv
ilcgc. We should not make fish of
one and fowl of another"