Page images
PDF
EPUB

:30.

United States v. Rintelen, Buchanan, and others. Indict

ment returned December 28, 1915, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, against Rintelen and seven others, charging them with conspiring to restrain, prevent, and hinder the foreign commerce of the United States in munitions of war and military and naval stores. Various dilatory pleas and demurrers interposed by defendants were overruled. As to Monnett the indictment was dismissed. A verdict of guilty was returned as to Rintelen, Lamar, and Martin, and they were sentenced to prison for one year. The jury disagreed as to Buchanan, and the other defendants. An appeal by Martin and Lamar to the Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of the District Court. On May 3, 1920, a nolle prosequi was entered as to Fowler. In June, 1919, a writ of error was allowed as to Martin and Lamar.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to review the case. 31.

United States v. Franz Bopp et al. Indictment returned

February 11, 1916, in the District Court, N. D. of California, against Bopp and six others, charging them with conspiring to restrain, injure, and destroy the interstate and foreign commerce of the United States in munitions of war, etc. Demurrers and motions to quash were overruled on March 30, 1916. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as to all the defendants. Four of the defendants were sentenced to one year in prison and to pay a fine of $5,000; one defendant was sentenced to

one year in prison without a fine. 32. United States v. Cowell et al. Indictment returned Octo

ber 27, 1916, in the District Court, D. of Oregon, charging certain officers and agents of nine cement manufacturing companies with engaging in a combination to restrain and with monopolizing interstate trade and commerce in cement on the Pacific coast. Among other things the indictment alleged that the defendants apportioned territory and maintained uniform prices. On April 30 and December 10, 1917, a majority of the defendants entered pleas of guilty and were fined amounts aggregating $17,500. As to the remaining defendants (Butchart and Moore), demurrers interposed by them have been overruled and the case was tried in October, 1919. After a conference of 12 hours the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. Upon a retrial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and fines aggregating $7,500 were

imposed. 33. United States v. Pan American Commission Corporation,

Comision Reguladora del Mercado de Henequen et al. Petition filed January 30, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants with entering into a combination to monopolize the sale and increase the price of sisal (used in the manufacture of binder twine) in the United States. The contract forming the basis of this suit was canceled by agreement of the parties in January, 1918, and the Pan American Commission Corporation was dissolved in February, 1918. When the case come on for hearing in July, 1918, the defendants made a motion to dismiss on the ground that the case had become moot. This motion was granted by the court, and on September 20, 1918, a decree was entered dismissing the petition without

prejudice. 34. United States v. Jensen Creamery Co. et al. Indictment

returned February 24, 1917, in the District Court of Idaho against 8 corporations and 11 individual defendants, charging them with combining and conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in creamery and dairy products in the Northwestern States. In February, 1919, the Jensen Creamery Company, one of the corporate defendants, plead guilty and was fined $7,500. The trial of the remaining defendants

$ resulted in a verdict of acquittal. 35. United States v. Aileen Coal Co. at al. (Smokeless Coal Combination.) Indictment returned March 5, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, against 108 corporations and 59 individuals, charging them with entering into a combination to eliminate competition in the sale of semibituminous coal, known in the trade as New River coal and Pocahontas coal, by means of a plan concertedly adopted and executed and involving the fixing by agreement of uniform minimum prices and terms of sale. Trial commenced June 18, 1917, and on July 12, 1917, the jury returned a ver

dict of acquittal. 36. United States v. Algoma Coal & Coke Co. et al. In

dictment returned March 5, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with combining to eliminate competition in the sale of semibituminous coal, known in the trade as New River coal and Pocahontas coal, by a plan involving among other things the sale of their product, through a common sales agency (Castner, Curran & Bullitt, Inc.) at uniform minimum prices and terms of sale fixed by agreement, the pooling of the proceeds of sale and the distribution thereof ratably between the several corporate mining defendants, etc. In view of the verdict of acquittal in the Aileen case (35 supra), which was the strongest of the group, a nolle prosequi was entered on July 19, 1917.

37.

а

United States v. Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. et al. (Bunker Coal Combination.) Indictment returned April 9, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with entering into a combination to eliminate competition in the sale of so-called bunker coal by means of a plan concertedly adopted and executed and involving the fixing by agreement of uniform minimum prices and uniform terms of sale. About one-half of the defendants who were likewise defendants in the Aileen case (35 supra), entered pleas in bar of autrefois acquit on the ground that the bunker transactions constituted part of the offense charged in the Aileen case. These pleas were sustained by the court on July 20, 1917. The case was dismissed as to the remaining

defendants. 38. United States v. Simpson et al. Indictment returned

April 2, 1917, in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, charging defendants with entering into an agreement as to the prices at which they would sell milk in the District of Columbia during the months of May to September, inclusive, 1916, and in pursuance of which uniform and increased prices were fixed and maintained.

Pending on motion to quash and plea in abatement. 39. United States v. Mead et al. Indictment returned April

12, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with entering into a combination in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in news print paper. Among other things it is charged that the defendants agreed to refrain from competing with each other, to cooperate in discouraging the erection of new mills or the installation of new machinery, to make simultaneous representations as to the alleged increased cost of production and alleged shortage of paper, and to curtail production and concertedly work for materially higher prices, etc. In November, 1917, five of the seven defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere and were fined amounts aggregating $11,000; and the case was dismissed as to one defendant for lack of evidence and continued as to the remaining defendant until he returned to the United

States. 40. United States v. Chicago Mosaic & Tiling Co. et al. In

dictment returned May 5, 1917, in the District Court, N. D. of Illinois, charging defendants, each a member or a representative of a member of the Chicago Mantel & Tile Contractors' Association, with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in wall and floor tiles. Among other things, the defendants refused to deal with nonmembers, induced manufacturers to refuse to sell tiles to nonmembers, maintained uniform prices, etc. Argued on demurrer in December, 1917. Demurrer overruled on February

12, 1918. The case is awaiting trial. 41. United States v. National Association of Master Plumbers

of the United States et al. Petition filed May 19, 1917, in

the District Court, W. D. of Pennsylvania, charging National Association, its affiliated State and local associations, their officers and members with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in plumbing goods by concertedly refusing to sell goods which they did not themselves install and in refusing to install goods which they did not themselves sell, coupled with the practice of refusing to patronize manufacturers and wholesale dealers who sold plumbing goods directly to consumers, or to nonmember retailers. The case was not contested, and an agreed decree enjoining the defendants from further committing the acts complained of was entered on May

19, 1917. 42. United States v. M. Piowaty & Sons et al. Indictment

returned May 24, 1917, in the District Court, D. of Massachusetts, charging defendants with combining through the instrumentality of the National Onion Association to control the onion crop and regulate the quantity placed on the market in such manner as to bring about a very substantial increase in price. On September 12, 1917, a demurrer was sustained as to the first count and overruled as to the second count. Five of the defendants have entered pleas of nolo contendere and were fined amounts aggregating $1,250. A nolle

prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants. 43. United States v. Gilman et al. Indictment returned June

2, 1917, in the District Court, N. D. of Illinois, charging defendants, each a dealer in eggs and a member of the Chicago Butter and Egg Board, with purchasing large quantities of eggs as dealers and then concertedly adopting and following a practice of making fictitious trades among themselves on the board at prices higher than the true market prices, thereby artificially enhancing the price of eggs throughout a large section of country. Demurrer overruled February 27, 1918. Indictment nolle prosed in September, 1921.

« PreviousContinue »