Boyle v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 4207.,4207.
• Citation: Boyle v. United States, 40 F.2d 49 (7th Cir. 1930)
• Parties: BOYLE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

40 F.2d 49 (1930)

BOYLE et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4207.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 15, 1930.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1930.

A. B. Dennis and Walter Brewer, both of Danville, Ill., for appellants.

Mary G. Connor, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before ALSCHULER, PAGE, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, with thirty-seven others, were indicted on the charge of violating section 1 of the Act of July 2, 1890 (15 USCA § 1), known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, for engaging in a conspiracy or combination in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in candy and other confectionary products. Some pleaded guilty; thirty-five went to trial, of whom nineteen were acquitted, and sixteen, including appellants, were convicted and sentenced. For appellants it is contended that the evidence did not show their guilt, and that interstate commerce is not involved.

Most of the defendants were members of an unincorporated association known as Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers, which had many years of existence. Its professed objects were improvements in the business and social conditions of its members. Its membership of about 250 was composed almost entirely of so-called candy jobbers, whose business it was to buy candies and to sell them in Chicago and vicinity, usually carrying their stocks in automobiles or wagons, and delivering directly to the purchasers, who were generally small retailers. They purchased their stocks from manufacturers and dealers in Chicago, as well as in Milwaukee, New York, Boston, and other places in various states. Their collective business was large, running into several millions of dollars yearly.

In course of time there developed a disposition and purpose to control this automobile and wagon trade in Chicago, and to prevent subjobbers¹ who were members from trading with customers of the members, and customers of the members from trading with manufacturers and subjobbers who would not agree that they would not sell their products in Chicago and vicinity to any who were not members of the association, and who did not maintain prices fixed by the association. For some years efforts to that end were more or less unavailing, and in about April, 1926, the association employed as its manager one Pastor, who promised and inaugurated a vigorous policy.

He proposed an amendment to the constitution and by-laws as follows:

All members are requested to comply with the following:

A. To not purchase candy from manufacturers who do not support our association.

B. To not purchase candy from subjobbers who do not support our association.

C. To not sell to any one who jobs candy and is not a member in good standing.

D. All members who are subjobbers are requested to comply with the following rules:

E. To not sell candy to a jobber or subjobber who is not a member in good standing of the Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers.

F. To not sell any candy, and have same called for, to any jobber or subjobber who is not a member in good standing of the Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers.

The amendment was unanimously approved, first at a meeting of the executive committee, at which all of appellants were present except Goldsmith, Boyle, and Briley. All but these three were members of the executive committee, save that Goldsmith was a member of the "Amalgamated Benevolent Club," an organization which was composed of Jewish candy jobbers, and which paid dues to the Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers; Goldsmith generally representing them at meetings of the executive committee of the latter.

Much of the controversy raged about retail tobacco dealers who were selling nationally advertised chocolate and nut bars of various descriptions manufactured by concerns of other states, and who were not members of the association, and to whom, it was claimed, manufacturers and subjobbers would cut prices.

Pastor (who was indicted and pleaded guilty, and was the government's main witness) actively and aggressively undertook to force manufacturers and subjobbers to comply with his terms. He visited...