| Show IN SHARP CASE GASE SET ASIDE Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Judge Marshall in Coal Combine Case NEW TRIAL IS ORDERED Anil t 1 nv l oo Nut Not ProhibIt a it Prom to 10 Soil Sell to Anone Mt Paul Mint Nov No l 1 ial 1 ter tr II U In itt the 9 tat circuit court of If to today l y handed banded down an opinion setting aside the thi ver r dirt diet slid and ordering n a 1 nen n trial In the i cuss of or the Ih against t tb ta tho I Coal company Om omi nj nt th u the Pacific nally company tho the Oreg n Short LIne Un James Ja M t Moore Inore fend ami Itt cit In lii which th tM they y an with violating th the Sherman law bmw III by b forming an unlawful combination 00 I II kim hll the suit WB wes IS brought In the iii name of ot the It ii tInted worn were by a SOIL Lake City coal cual roalde dealer de named nome ai Sharp rp woo who charged the thoo coal cool company IlY and the defendant rail ran railways ways nays WR with willi to hi Mil ecu and An haul insl 01 for him Sharp harp charged that the company refused d to seth sell II him bim coal eoal I and an that th lbs railways rofu refused od to haul hul tile the commodity because h hes advertised ed and antI sold gold coal C 61 at a ft lea ho r ngu Ih n his hI competitors Judge JUll In lib Ida opinion ol holds hokl that was waa w no urn n evidence of or any an combination between any two to of the hue defendants defendant either to 10 refuse to sell coal to Sharp or to refuse to 10 transport It for him The lower loer court found round the defendant guilty of ot violation vl atlon of or the Sherman anti antitrust antitrust trust law and Imposed 4 a 1 nile fine of ot J 1000 and lid costs coats on l and n and nod coSts oot on the four other defendants defendant OPINION OF THE COURT The opinion of If the Ut circuit coutt of or ap app p pelM laai a at as contained In tho syllabus la I aa at I I follows I The test teat of ot an n unlawful combination undue the tine ut let of July Jul t 2 1St la is Its nee effect upon free tree competition In III commerce among amonI the states or with foreign nations A combination the object of or which IB mut to stifle or directly and to such competition Is I unites unlawful ulla ful ni under that act oct but If It the necessary effect tIet of or a combination Is IA but Incident Incidentally ally all and ami Ind Indirectly to restrict competition tion ton while Its It chief hiet result In Is II to 10 fouler foster the Ih trade and Imd Increase the bu ln of ot throe those who make and amad operate It It dots does not fall under tinder the ban bait bu of ot title law lawA lawA lawA A local com company engaged ll In mining and shad selling Belling Its Ita 11 coal It is not prohibited by bythe bythe bythe the antitrust act ad or by the law from refusing to 10 sell el Its coal from selecting Ita I it from rein fixing tha and terms on which It I will stilt t seth Mil Ni Ita Itt it product or from selling to t different and on different terms term A violation of ut a u t law by b a a corpora corporation corr corporation tion ton does doea not render its It stockholders criminally labo then there Is I substantial evidence of ot fact r uc which exclude every other hypothesis but that of or guilt gi It I la is th the duty of or the HIA Ihl trial court to Instruct tile the Jury Jut to return a r ri for Car fr tin 1100 M Sc And Antl where 1 tell All 11 th the ev I t li is as with Innon na Re Al with guilt It I la Ia h th 1 tile i duty dil of or the Ih ai si a 1111 OUrt to ta r a a judgment of conviction 0 vt l In conclusion tl hum court says 1 Ther I wu WI who no ItO substantial e In e of any 1 bet Wren t to Into o of or tin th defendants nt I either tol hr to refuse fUI to aril I uI uIt 1 ti to t libel ll I or nr to 10 tl to It II f rf fsr r him himA hIl A brt een a that U ansi al It I Ito I or n nt In a lol Ik of the Ih antitrust act at cannot In hi Informed I formed I h hj tin th ii thoughts or seta nf T r the ti or gent Il without hou the eon con rol Ilo I In It I nf of 0 any thi r or r aunt nt of r I the Ibm Ih corporation The Tf unIon onion of or two t 0 or more m the tho I conscious of two tw or sr inor Is Ii IndIspensable to t an un In unlawful lawful The Th fineus Fl case centers In Iii Inthe the winter of or when U V 1 J 7 Sharp Sr a Halt Ri I bek ak coal 1 drain desier INI harmed hATo that Ur Wl was w a conspiracy to drive him Mm out til of business hll and ana an obtained oIn Judg jud La a s In t th the Union Unk l coat Cl U th Halway company Comp Ih th the Oregon S Short Blunt J 1 M W Moor MO and a la is very vei writ well n remembered 1 In lit city elv Through an a experience nf ot th thi pIe p winter an attempt was aas A matte male to avert a possible root coal fl famine amine during tM lb IJ winter of or The Th of ot the Ih went wt m a storage rate fe f rr r laII which a eSit t Into In Hi I ho spring p It or f 1101 Th provided t for tor a reduction of ot Ml tuO f cent Cl a t ton n to the th wholesaler nn Ot th Uw part of or the th raIlroads and In hi for or this th tho dealers agreed Rf not hot to tithe nils 11 th the price and a of o the 1 iii h supply that bitt wee R not I In the th hi tall fall tHI t hues was wan Wt to be b a refund rund of D C II cents nt a ton toil t l the tha ecu case wa was heard In lii II lx em embr br br of r last year er th II time s ahi w i I bitt Sharp had M made mae an reduction In price and them t m The railroads refused to tn it haul ha ul any n morn awe m call 01 fur for tr Sharp and anti thus thi loRI coal company through J S M Mr or 01 its anent agent t refused fos pl Hl to In fl h hI hIs eM It 1 ass waa alleged al d that ears cum of or coal coh I belonging ln to t thim him were re diverted and Ind never nover 1111 waa lR ass forc rore forced J out cut of business hUlln and this wa ims A the tho reason of ot tie lie suit Th The Jury jUr found the thc defendants and the thi U principals 10 each 1 h and nd FuU 10 10 1000 ThO The cam to an end nd on 2 21 of or the thi cm iut tent lent year 11 A Alt stay was wao for fr nn ito In app appeal l to the tho tie Stoles States SI circuit commit nail and the th decision handed l don I n waa wae the UtI result of or this the appeal 11 |
