United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1907 |
| Citation | 149 F. 836 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MacANDREWS & FORBES CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Henry W. Taft, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Delancey Nicoll and John D. Lindsay, for defendants.
The indictment which was considered on demurrer in opinion filed herein December 3, 1906 (149 F. 823), having come on for trial, and resulted in a verdict of guilty against the corporate defendants upon the first and third counts only-- i.e., those for combination and monopoly under the Sherman anti-trust law (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200))-- motion is now made to set aside the verdict upon numerous grounds, as to all which except one I have in the opinion referred to expressed my views, and to those views I adhere.
It is now urged that the charges of combination and monopoly as stated in the indictment and explained by the evidence constitute but one offense, and that, therefore, either (1) the verdict is void and judgment thereon unlawful, or (2) that no punishment can be awarded upon more than one count as to impose a fine under both counts would amount to a double punishment for the same offense. This problem differs from that presented on demurrer. The indictment in form correctly charges both a combination and a monopoly; and circumstances certainly exist under which the evidence to support the charge of combination would be quite different from that proving monopoly. It is clear, also, that the two charges might not be provable against the same individuals but with the testimony before the court it is apparent that the evidence here was in some sense applicable to both charges, and, as the verdict shows, affected both defendants. If all the crimes charged against a given person are committed in accomplishing one unlawful action or in bringing about one unlawfully desired result, it is clearly improper to split up the transaction into as many parts as there are crimes incident to the fulfillment of unlawful desire, and thus multiply punishment by multiplying indictments or counts.
It appears to me that the decisions relied on by the defendants depends solely on this admitted principle. Thus the forgery of a bond and mortgage is but one unlawful transaction, and separate indictments will not lie for forging the two instruments. People v. Peck, 4 N.Y.Cr.R. 148. And the obligation of street commissioners to keep the highways in repair is a single duty, and there cannot be separate indictments or counts each alleging a failure to keep a particular street in repair and all speaking as of the same date. State v. Commissioners, 6 N.C. 371. So, also a conviction for arson is a bar to an indictment for murder in compassing the death of one burned in the building. State v. Cooper, 13 N.J.Law, 361, 25 Am.Dec. 490 because the arson and the murder were simply successive stages of one offense. The true test of the correctness of the defendants' position is whether upon a review of both the facts and the law identity exists between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
...as well as against the completed result.' But the crime under § 1 is legally distinct from that under § 2 (United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C., 149 F. 836; United States v. Buchalter, 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 625) though the two sections overlap in the sense that a monopoly under § 2 is a......
-
United States v. Oil Co Oil Co v. United States
...as well as against the completed result.' But the crime under § 1 is legally distinct from that under § 2 (United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C., 149 F. 836, United States v. Buchalter, 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 625) though the two sections overlap in the sense that a monopoly under § 2 is a......
-
American Tobacco Co. v. United States
... ... Buchalter, 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 625, certiorari denied Shapiro v. United States, 301 U.S. 708, 57 S.Ct. 942, 81 L. Ed. 1362; United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C.N.Y., 149 F. 836 ... As against the contention of appellants, we are of the opinion that the information alleged ... ...
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
...different offense from a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade as described in Section 1. United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y.1907, 149 F. 836. It is also true that a monopoly may be separate from a conspiracy to monopolize, United States v. Shapiro, 2 ......