Page. Joint District Council of Carpenters, Irving v., 180 F., 896 377 878 848 850 481 470 241 398 Lusk, Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v., 224 F., 704_-_ Marienelli, Lim. v. United Booking Offices of America, 227 F., 165-- Mitchell, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v., 202 F., 512_. Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Eclair Film Co., 208 F., 416_. New Departure Mfg. Co., United States v., 204 F., 107‒‒‒‒ 145 510 O'Halloran v. American Sea Green Slate Co., 207 F., 187___. Pacific & Arctic Ry. & Nav. Co., United States Patterson et al., United States v., 201 F., 697. People's Tobacco Co., American Tobacco Co. v., 204 F., 58. 138 Prince Line, Lim., United States v., 220 F., 230_ 675 242 U. S., 537 684 Rockefeller, United States v., 222 F., 534_.. 844 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n, United States v., 207 F., 434 312 Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Fenster, 219 F., 755 506 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Frank, 226 F., 906.......... 914 United Booking Offices of America, Marienelli, Lim., v., 227 F., United Gas Improvement Co., Fleitmann v., 211 F., 103---- United States v. American-Asiatic S. S. Co., 220 F., 230 United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 226 F., 62– 230 F., 522 United States v. Elton, 222 F., 428. United States v. International Harvester Co., 214 F., 987. United States v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 204 F., 107_ 201 F., 697 Page. 881 910 830 347 368 637 850 481 241 234 145 213 1 45 60 United States v. Prince Line, Lim., 220 F., 230 242 U. S., 537_ United States v. Rockefeller, 222 F., 534__. United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n, 207 F., 434_ 675 684 844 312 686 Welsbach Street Lighting Co., Fleitmann v., 240 U. S., 27--- Wogan Bros. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 215 F., 273__ FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS. VOL. 5. 1912-1914. Syllabus. UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON et al. (District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D. June 26, 1912.) [201 Fed. Rep., 697.] MONOPOLIES (§ 10)-SHERMAN Anti-TruST ACT-CONSTITUTIONALITY.— The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3200]), making it a criminal offense to make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade or commerce, or to monopolize or attempt to monopolize or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of such trade or commerce, is a valid criminal statute, sufficiently clear in itself to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation againt him, and criminal prosecutions under it do not deprive the defendants of liberty or property without due process of law. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. 9; Dec. Dig. § 10.] MONOPOLIES (§ 31)-SHERMAN Anti-TruST ACT-INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION. If an indictment under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3200]), charges acts on the part of defendants which are in fact and necessarily in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, or effect a monopoly of some part of such commerce, by wrongfully injuring or destroying the business of competitors, defendants are presumed to "For opinion of District Court on the patent question (205 Fed., 292), see post, page 45. For opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversing conviction (222 Fed., 599), see post, page 60. Petition for writ of certiorari denied (238 U. S., 635), June 14, 1915. Syllabus copyrighted, 1913, by West Publishing Company. Syllabus. have intended such consequences, and to have known that their acts were in violation of the statute. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. 31.] MONOPOLIES (§ 31)-SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT-INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION. An indictment under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3200]), charging a number of defendants with a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, is sufficiently specific where it avers that defendants were the managing officers and agents of a corporation, who controlled the conduct of its business, and, while not naming particular instances specifically, describes the course of conduct and means used by the corporation, by which it compelled many competitors, some of whom are also named, to go out of business, or to sell their business to it. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. § 31.] CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1186)-RULES OF ADMINISTRATION-TECHNICAL DEFENSES. At the present time the reasons which formerly impelled courts to resort to technicalities in criminal cases to avoid the infliction of unjustly severe penalties have ceased to exist, and the effort now on the part of the judges is to overlook technicalities so far as possible, and to administer the law from a broad viewpoint, looking to ultimate justice upon the merits. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3215-3219; Dec. Dig. § 1186.] MONOPOLIES (§ 31)-SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT-INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION. An indictment for conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3200]), charges an offense, where a general charge is made of restraint of trade in a particular article, pur [698]suant to a conspiracy for the purpose, and specific facts are alleged which, if true, show that defendants have restrained a part of that trade. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. § 31.] MONOPOLIES (§ 12)-SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT-CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.-If the purpose of a conspiracy is to restrain interstate trade, within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]), the degree of restraint effected thereby is immaterial to the offense. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 10; Dec. Dig. 12.] MONOPOLIES (8 31)-SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT-INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.-In an indictment under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 209, c. 647 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]), for conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, it is not necessary to allege an overt act. |