Show TRIAl IS ORDERED Verdict in the Sharp Case Set Aside by Judge Walter WalterH 1 I IH H Sanborn in United States Circuit Court of Appeals SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT WAS NOT VIOLATED Coal Company Not Prohibited From F rom Selecting Its Custom Customers ers From Refusing R to Sell Product Of Fixing Prices OPINION AS JiS HANDED DOWN St Paul Minn Nov 19 Judge Walter H Sanborn in the United States circuit court of appeals today handed down an opinion setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial in the case of the United States against the Union Pacific Coal com corn company company pany the Union Pacific railway the tile Oregon Short Line railway James JamesH JamesM aines I H N Moore and Everett Buckingham in which they are charged with vio violating violating yb lating the Sherman antitrust law Jaw by forming an unlawful combination While hile the suit sult was vas brought In the name of oC the United States proceedings were started by a Salt Sail Lake City coal dealer named Sharp who charged the coal com corn company compan pany pan and the defendant railways with re refusing refusing refusing fusing to sell lIell and haul coal for hIm Sharp charged that the Union Pacific Pa Coal eoal company refused to sell him coal roal roaland and that the tho railways refused to haul the commodity because he be advertised and sold coal at a less figure than his competitors Judge Sanborn in his opinion holds that there was no substantial evidence of any combination between any two of the defendants either to refuse to soil sell coal to Sharp or to refuse to transport It for him hini The lower Jower court found the tile defendants guilty of oC violation of the Sherman anti antitrust antitrust antitrust trust law and imposed a n Tine fine of 1000 and costs on Buckingham and and costs on tin the other ether defendants Text of the Opinion The Tho opinion of the circuit court of ap app app p alf ils IB lb contained In the syllabus s as fol follows follows follows lows The test of oC an unlawful c tinder r the th act of July 2 1890 Jfe Is 1 Its nece sarv sar effect ct upon free competition in cum corn mf merce r e t or with foreign nations A combination the necessity ne of pf f which s 8 to v br Directly and substantially to restrict auRli auth s competition J i unlawful t that act but if It th eP er feet STa o t a 41 Combination Is hi hut but Incidentally In and amI Indirectly I to restrict r competition v while hUt Its chief result is to foster the Ufe trade and increase the business of oC those who I t Make and operate It it does not fall faU under the ban of this law lawA A coal company compan engaged in mining and ani I selling its coal is not prohibited by b the thc antitrust act or by the law from refus reCus ig to sell its coal from selecting Its it cus customers Imers from fixing the price and terms on which It will wilt sell its product or from I to different parsons and on dif diff 1 f rent terms Stockholders Not N t Liable t violation of a law by b a corporation I u ues es not rend r its non participating stockholders criminally liable Unless there Is Es substantial evidence nce of o facts tats which exclude every other cs Fig s but that of guilt it is the duty of tile thi tl e t lal court to instruct the Jury to return a verdict for the accused And where all the substantial evidence C is 3 as consistent with Innocence as with I guilt Emit It Is the duty dut of the appellate court cour courto t to reverse a judgment of conviction In conclusion the court says There was no substantial evidence of ot otan e I any an combination between any two of the th I defendants either to refuse refus to sell coal cue 1 to Sharp or to refuse to transport It cuer for Cor to r him himA A combination between berneen a corporation 1 and its officers or agents In violation of o othe r the antitrust act ct cannot be formed by bythe bythe b the thoughts or acts of or the officer or 0 agent dulle without tha th conscious con participation In it H of any other officer or agent agen agenor t of or the corporation The Tho union of oC two or more persons the th 0 participation of two or more mor 0 minds is indispensable to an unlawful ii combination The action In which a reversal of the th 0 derision of or the Utah court was secured 1 was known as an the Sharp case the th C charge harge being that of conspiracy and re m restraint restraint of trade for putting out of busi business business business ness David J Sharp who formerly con conducted ducted a coal business In Upper Main Mai a street Sharp advertised to sell coal al at ala ata a t a reduction and it w ws s alleged allege il til that a conspiracy followed by b which he h hI C was prevented from getting etting any an coal I The case resulted In the imposition of a afine aline afine fine line of l on Everett Buckingham and an d each on James M Moore doore the Union n Pacific railway the Union Pacific Coal Cos LI company and the Oregon Short Line Coal Coalt Co LI LIThe j t The decision In the court ourt of this state stat C was given about a year ear ago |