New Britain herald., 1922-11-27
QUASH INDICTMENT
 IN LANDERS' CASE
(Continued from First Page)

industry and excluding others iron the use of these patents, by acquir ing and combining competing com panies by entering into contracts witt competitors whereby the latter woult refrain from competition and by in stituting unwarranted and tortuou. litigation against competitors for the purpose of eliminating competition or their part and intimidating them and preventing them from continuing in 1 the industry"
 It was also charged that the de- fendants would ''unlawfully and de- ceitfully enter and cause to be en- tered collusive bids for furnishing and maintaining street lights for the purpose of restraining competition and deciving public officials charged with receiving such bids, and falsely leading such officials to believe that they were obtaining bona flde com petition"
 Statements attributed to the special attorneys assigned to prosecute the case were to the effect that since 1919 the defendants monopoly in the gas
 
 been 100 per cent and had been fol- lowed by an increase in rates.
 MT. Momand told the prosecutors. it was stated, that up to 1919 the av- craze price charged for furnishing and maintaining a gas mantle street lamp was $1o year. Since then, he said. the rate in Baltimore was in- creased to $1460; in St. Louis to $16.S4; in St. Paul to $15.5o, and in Brooklyn to $15.20.
 Attorney Generals Letter.
 The letter of the attorney general directing that the indictment should not be pressed reads:
 Nov. 24, 1922. Colonel William Hayward,
 United States Attorney,
 New York, N. Y. Dear Colonel Hayward:
 An indictment was returned in the ! District Court of the United States of | America for tho Southern District of New York in the case of United States 'f America against the United Gas improvement Company and others March 6, 1922.
 Since the indictment was returned ome complaint was made by the par les interested in bringing the matter o the attention of the department of ustice that the indictment was defec- i've and that q motion to direct yer let for the defendants on the ground f a variance between the charges Of he indictment and the case made by he proof might be sustained. Infor- nation is at hand indicating that for ier attorneys general of the United l tates had grave doubts as to whether l he charges covered by this indictment elated to Interstate" commerce. roof of venue and criminal acts 'ithin the statute of limitations nec- ssary to support conviction renders successful prosecution extremely oubtful.
 For these and other reasons an in estigation has been made of the evi- ence and the law relating to the HI 1arges made in this indictment, and III am now of opinion that the govern III ent would not be justified in going fl trial upon it. You are, therefore, I| duested, if such action meets with II 'ur approval, to ask the court to dis iss the indictment.
 While your name as district attor- y was necessarily signed to the in- ctment. I recall that your office had active part in presenting 1t to the and jury and that the matter was ndled directly from the department justice in Washington by a special sistant to the attorney general. This t relieves your office from any re- onsibility if an error was made in II the indictment, which I now H Iuest be dismissed.
 Very truly yours,
 (Signed H. M. .DAUGHERTY,
 Attorney General.o Assistant United States District At ney Joyce, of New York, who gave the letter, was asked if the other ictment was to be returned against defendants, or if the quashinE of existing indictment would end the ttef. He replied that he did not ,w, that the matter SO tar had been idled from Washington, and that local office had not been advised ond the directions contained in Mir. lgherty's letter.
 he individual defendants in the in- tment are Samuel T. Bodine, presi- t of the United Gas Improvement 1pany of Philadelphia; Randall rgan of Philadelphia, vice-presi- t of the comnany; Sidney Mason, Zl