OCR Text |
Show ROCKEFELLER IS NOT EXONERATED But Six of Directors of New Haven Road Are Found Not Guilty. Now York, Jan. 9. Six of the 11 former directors of the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad, charged by the government with criminal crim-inal violation of tho Sherman anti-trust anti-trust law, wero found not guilty late today by the jury that for nearly threo months has been trying the case. The jury disagreed on the five others. Those acquitted were D. Newton Barney, Farmlngton, Conn.; Robert "W. Taft, Providence, R. I.; James S-Hemingway, S-Hemingway, A Hcaton Robertson and Frederick F. Brewster, New Haven, and Plenry K. McHarg, Stanford, Conn. Those on whom the jury disagreed wero William Rockefeller, New York; Charles F. Booker, Ansonia, Conn.; Charles M. Pratt, Brooklyn; Lewis Cass Ledyard, New York, and Edward D. Robbins, New Haven. The verdict was returned at 4:30 p. m. today after 30 hourB of deliberation delib-eration and tho jury was discharged. Tho final vote on the five defendants upon whom the jurors could not agree stood S to 4 for acquittal. tn vw iwi f-nw I t inn R. L. Batts, chief counsel for the government, anounced that he would move for a new trial of these five. This will be done, he said, before, any effort will bo mado to try the six other former directors of the road that wero indicted, but who obtained the right to bo tried separately. The jurors did not reach their verdict ver-dict until after they had reported to Judge Hunt earlier in the day that they could not agree. Up to that time noon they had been deliberating with a view to bringing in a verdict on the guilty or innocence of the defendants de-fendants collectively. The court then Instructed them to make further to concur and that if they could not agree upon all, to try and reach a decision de-cision on some. The vote of the question ques-tion of all at that time also stood 8 to 4 for acquittal, it was learned. Returning to the jury room, the jurors renewed their discussion with the court's instructions in mind. William Rockefeller, who is ill, and Henry K. McHarg wero not present when the jurors filed into court. The nine other defendants were in their usual seats. With the entrance of the jurymen, with their hats and coats in hand, presaging a verdict, the mental state of the defendants was obviously one of tense strain. Whllo they had discussed all the principal phases of the cause, tho jurors jur-ors said, the chief Issues of debates were the matter of the alleged suppression sup-pression by the New Haven of the competition of the Joy Steamship line and the acqusition by the New Haven of tho Boston & Maine railroad, by which the government charged the New Haven completed its monopoly of the transportation traffic of New England. The jurors explained that they had sought to follow instructions of the court in his charge that they should decide first whether the alleged conspiracy con-spiracy of which the defendants were accused, was in existence in 1S90, when the government charged it began, be-gan, and was continuous down to the date of the indictment. They reached no agreement on this question, they said Apparently,, for the purpose oC debate, the jurors assumed that such a conspiracy existed, and then took up the diffe'rent phases. The participation partici-pation of one of the defendants In the New Haven's effort to prevent the sale of two steamboats to the Joy lino as a subject of sharp debate, it was said. Of the five defendants whose guilt or innocence was not decided, William Will-iam Rockefeller was the only one whoso term of service as a New Haven director continued throughout the entire en-tire time of the alleged conspiracy. He ante-dated Charles F. Brooker by three years. Messrs. Ledyard and Pratt took part In the transactions which led to the acquisition of the stock of the Boston & Maine in 1907, and as directors of the latter road, became be-came directors of the New Haven when tho Boston & Maine was taken over. The other directors were little mentioned men-tioned in the evidence, and their chief defense was that they depended upon the advice of Charles S. Mellen or Edward D. Robbins in the acts charged charg-ed against them which virtually con-of con-of propositions that came before the slsted of casting their votes in favor board of directors for approval. oo |