Latest Important Cases Monopolies. Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade May be Continuing Ofl'ense-Statute of Limita tions. U. S. In the cases of Gustav E. Kissel and Thomas B. l-larned, indicted for conspiracy in restraint of trade in July, 1909, where the defendants pleaded the statute of limitations, on the ground that the offense for which they were indicted was committed more than three years back, Judge Holt held that the indictments were barred by the statute and quashed them more than a year ago (see 21 Green Bag 645). The Supreme Court of the United States has now expressly overruled Judge Holt, emphatically dissenting from his view that "a conspiracy in restraint of trade is nothing but a contract or agreement between two or more persons in restraint of trade." Upon this view Judge Holt based his conclusion that the "continuing offense" theory of conspiracy would not apply to a conspiracy made unlawful by the Sherman 36!.
Mr. Justice Holmes, in announcing the opinion of the Court Dec. 12, examined the argument that a conspiracy is a completed crime as soon as formed, as would be the case where a con
spiracy were merely a contract. The Court said: "The indictment charges a continuing con spiracy. Whether it does so with technical sufficiency is not before us. All that we decide is that a conspiracy may have continuance in time, and that where, as here, the indictment, consistently with the other facts, alleges that it
did tion so must continue be denied to theunder date the of filing, general that issue allega~ and not by a special plea. Under the general issue, all defenses, including the defense that the con spiracy was ended by success, abandonment or
otherwise more than three years before July 1, 1906, will be open and unaffected by what we now decide." 67 Legal Intelligeneer (Philadel phia) 656 (Dec. 23). Anthracite Coal Trust-Blocking Establishment of Competing Route Unlawful Restraint of Trade. U. S. The Reading Company and many other cor porations composing the so-called anthracite coal trust were found not to have violated the Sherman act by the United States Circuit Court for the northern district of Pennsylvania, Dec. 8. But the Government was successful in one in stance, that of the Temple Iron Company, which was held to be an illegal combination. Judge George Gray said: "A careful consideration of the very able argument and brief of the counsel for the Government don not convince us that
99
the evidence discloses any such general contract,
combination, or conspiracy among the defend ants in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the same." Of the acts of the Temple Iron Company he said: “The combination brought about the abandonment of the project [for a route from the Wyoming coalfield in Pennsylvania to tidewater in the state of New York] and the possibility of a competing road in interstate commerce was for the time being frustrated. I cannot escape the conclusion, therefore, that the decree of this
court should denounce as illegal the combination by which this result was brought about if a decree for an injunction under the prayers con tained in the petition can be founded upon such denouncement." Judge Buffington agreed with Judge Gray. except in one respect in which he went further, holding the 65 per cent contract existing between the big corporations and the independent companion unlawful. Judge Lanning dismissed all the contentions of the Government. Negligence. Assumption of Risk in Case of Passenger Riding on Platform of Street Car Notiee Warning Passengers Equivalent to Invita tion. D. C. A decision has been rendered in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia which, if it proves a precedent, may have a decided bearing upon the crowded street car problem of other cities. It was in efl‘ect that a man injured by being thrown from the platform of a crowded car when rounding a curve has ground for action for damages against the company. Abraham Hart sued the Capital Traction Com pany for damages in the Supreme Court of the District, and was beaten on the ground that in standing on the rear platform he assumed the risks. He appealed and Mr. Justice Van Orsdel of the Court of Appeals held that Hart had a right of action.
38 Washington Law Reporter 716
(Nov. 11). The Court said: "The defendant cannot de liberately permit and create a custom of hauling passengers on the platforms of its cars, and escape liability for accidents occurring through their operation with relation to those particular pas sengers. Neither can the railway Company escape the obligation imposed by the custom by posting a notice, as was done in this case, warn ing passengers that it is dangerous to ride on the platforms. The custom thus established is equivalent to an invitation to passengers to
occupy and ride upon the platforms- ‘md the
