OCR Text |
Show Witnesses at Federal Probe Quizzed on Sugar Company Com-pany Trial SALT LAKE; April 29. Testimony of John A. Hendrickson and Lorenzo N. Stohl was given yesterday in the federal trado commission hearing of the complaint against the Utah-Idaho ; Sugar company, the Amalgamated Suynr company. Ernest R. Woollev, and A. P. Cooper, charging them with I conspiracy to restrain competition In Interstate commerce. Herbert R, Macmlllan, counsel for the Amalgamated company, cross-examined M. Hendrickson. Mr. Henderson Hen-derson again related much of the his-' tory of his connection with the West1 Cache Sugar company, and on cross-exam cross-exam Inaction was quizzed on matters concerning the recent trial of the easel of the "West Cache versus Hendrickson Hendrick-son and Stohl, in which a judgment j was rendered the plaintiffs for $150,- j S00. llnsls nr Sui(. j Mr. Stohl was questioned by Mr. Macmlllan concerning alleged efforts' made to bring ' about a compromise' and submit to arbitration the ques- tions on which the subsequent suit was based. The first witness of the day was , Charles Bray, cashier of the Root Growers' Sugar company of Rijrby, Idaho, who testified concerning con-'", vcrsat Ions' with Messrs. Cullen and ' Cooper, In which the latter were al-1 leged to have made derogatory re-1 marks about the company. Mr. P. ray said that he had had pre-! vious sugan experience with the' Great Western Sugar company of Colorado. , r.nd that the mill of the Beet Grow-comparlng Grow-comparlng favorably with any of ( ers company was an excellent one, those of the Great Western. In cross-examination of Mr. Hendrickson. Hen-drickson. Tdr. Macmillnn asked lhu: witness why he had attacked fsome-, of the best citizens of the state." reading read-ing from the record of the previous day. Mr. Hendrickson said he had not attacked any "best" citizens, " whereupon Mr. MacniillHn objected to the answer as the conclusion of the witness, a man who, ho said, is "absolutely unworthy of giving such a conclusion in court." j Mr. Hendrickson was ashed,, con-1 corning what property he had deeded over to his wife and daughter subsequent sub-sequent to the Judgment rendered against him in the Third district' court. He answered that the deed to j his home had been In his wife's name j for twelve years prior to the trial, 1 and that upon the finding of what hc termed the "unfair" verdict, ho had 1 advised his wife to have the deed re-1 corded. The witness slated that the, deed to this particular property had been permitted to remain in his name after tbe deed was signed in order to 1 benefit his credit. j There were two other deeds of J property, one to his wife and" the other to his daughter, which. Mr. Hendrickson stated, had been record-: ed either during the- progress of the West Cache .suit or immediately thereafter. Mr. Macmlllan had introduced Into the record a proposal for arbitration submitted to Hendrickson and Stohl by Mr. Woollcy, and their counter-agreement. counter-agreement. 00 |