Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1913 |
| Citation | 205 F. 827 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | BUCKEYE POWDER CO. v. HAZARD POWDER CO. |
MacFarland Taylor & Costello, of New York City, and Hyde, Joslyn, Gilman & Hungerford, of Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.
Henry F. Parmelee, of New York City, for defendant.
The complaint alleges that the E. I. Dupont De Nemours Company formed a combination of various powder makers, including the defendant, to monopolize the interstate business in powder and other explosives, which combination finally and deliberately destroyed the plaintiff's business September 19, 1908. Threefold damages are claimed under section 7 of the Sherman Act amounting to $3,000,000.
The plaintiff has brought a similar action in the district of New Jersey against the E. I. Dupont De Nemours Company and other corporations, charged as co-conspirators, including the defendant herein, on which, being a Connecticut corporation service of process could not be had.
The deposition de bene esse under section 863, Rev. Stat. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661) of Charles F. Rideal, residing in the city of New York, more than 100 miles from the place of trial, is being taken. He has been served with a subpoena to testify and produce documents, and he refuses to answer certain questions which are certified by the commissioner to me.
The first objection made by counsel for the witness was that he had been given but one day's notice to produce documents, which could not be produced in so short a time, which the commissioner met by allowing an adjournment of 12 days. On the adjourned day counsel for the witness objected on the ground that the witness had been served with a subpoena duces tecum, without being served with a subpoena to testify. This is not so. The subpoena called upon him both to testify and to produce documents.
The witness did produce one paper, namely, the advance proof of an article entitled 'The Five Million Dollar Suit,' referring to the suit brought in the district of New Jersey, in which the plaintiff was very severely reflected upon and the E. I. Dupont De Nemours Company greatly praised. The witness has admitted that a letter dated August 27, 1912, though signed in his name, was dictated, but not signed, by him. This letter is a clear admission that he wrote the article.
The other documents called for he refused to produce, because they were his private property and he was not a party to nor interested in the pending action. These objections were entirely without merit. This should have ended the activities of counsel for the witness, but he was allowed to remain, and instructed the witness not to answer question after question, on the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant. With this the witness had no concern whatever.
At the hearing before me his counsel made the additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
...answered certain questions, she might 'incriminate herself under the criminal laws of Washington.' See also, e.g., Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., 2 Cir., 205 F. 827; In re Doyle, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 686, rev'd without opinion 47 F.2d 1086. 13 The Government also relied on the North Ca......
-
United States v. St. Pierre
...the whole crime and stands upon the fact that that waives nothing. The only other federal decision we have found is Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., D.C., 205 F. 827, in which there was no The question has come up a number of times in the state courts which have either held, or assu......
-
Rogers v. United States
...S.Ct. 281, 283, 56 L.Ed. 448. 14 United States v. St. Pierre, 2 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 837, 147 A.L.R. 240; Brckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., D.C.Conn., 1913, 205 F. 827, 829. 15 262 U.S. at page 359, 43 S.Ct. at page 563, 67 L.Ed. 1023 (emphasis supplied). The Arndstein appeals, like ......
-
United States v. Shibley
...S.Ct. 279, 78 L.Ed. 617. 62 Rogers v. United States, supra, 340 U. S. at page 373, 71 S.Ct. at page 442. 63 Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., D.C.1912, Conn., 205 F. 827, 829. 64 California Civil Code, § 47(2). See, Yankwich, It's Libel or Contempt If You Print It, 1950, pp. 292-297.......