United States v. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD, Crim. A. No. 63-252-S.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 63-252-S. |
| Citation | 225 F. Supp. 577 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
John H. Dougherty, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Murray H. Falk, Asst. U. S. Atty., Stephen Moulton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for the United States.
Edward B. Hanify, Ropes & Gray, Boston, Mass., Neal Holland, General Counsel, Boston and Maine Railroad, Boston, Mass., for Boston and Maine Railroad.
Claude B. Cross, John M. Reed, Withington, Cross, Park & McCann, Boston, Mass., for Daniel A. Benson.
Edward O. Proctor, Ely, Bartlett, Brown & Proctor, Boston, Mass., for George F. Glacy.
Lawrence R. Cohen, Boston, Mass., William T. Griffin, New York City, for Patrick B. McGinnis.
Jackson J. Holtz, Cornelius J. Sullivan, Holtz, Sullivan & Zonderman, Boston, Mass., for Henry Mersey International Railway Equipment Corp.
There are before me motions of the defendants Boston and Maine Railroad, Daniel A. Benson, Patrick B. McGinnis and George F. Glacy to dismiss Count I of the indictment in the above case in the light of a Bill of Particulars filed by the government. In this Count of the indictment the defendants are charged with violation of Section 10 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 20) which provides "No common carrier engaged in commerce shall have any dealings in securities, supplies, or other articles of commerce, * * with another corporation, firm, partnership, or association when the said common carrier shall have upon its board of directors or as its president, manager, or as its purchasing or selling officer, or agent in the particular transaction, any person who is at the same time a director, manager, or purchasing or selling officer of, or who has any substantial interest in, such other corporation, firm, partnership, or association, * * *" except by competitive bidding.
The government concedes that there are no interlocking directors, and it bases its case upon the allegation that the named individual defendants had a "substantial interest" in the defendant International. The Bill of Particulars discloses that the "substantial interest" in this case consists of "an understanding, agreement, relationship, arrangement and concert of action among the said defendants McGinnis, Glacy, and International, and others, for, among other things, the purpose of producing profits for International from dealings by it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Boston and Maine Railroad
...a direct appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, from the District Court's order dismissing Count I of an indictment (225 F.Supp. 577) for failure to state an offense under § 10 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 734, 15 U.S.C. § 20. That section provides in relevant 'No common c......
-
United States v. Frank, Crim. No. 134-63.
... ... , or any steamboat, canal boat, vessel, or other watercraft, or railroad car, or any yard where any lumber, coal, or other goods or chattels are ... ...