United States v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 232 F. 953 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 20.,19 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Alexander H. Elder, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Washington, D.C., Robert J. Sterrett, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Francis Fisher Kane, U.S Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa.
Wm Clarke Mason and Charles Heebner, both of Philadelphia, Pa for defendant.
Indictment No. 19, in each of the several counts, charges the defendant with having knowingly granted to various consignees concessions in respect to transportation in interstate commerce of certain carloads of coal. It is alleged that the coal in question was shipped from points in West Virginia and Maryland over connecting lines and over the line of the defendant to Port Richmond, Philadelphia. The concessions are alleged to have consisted in failing and neglecting to assess against the respective consignees any demurrage charge for the detention of the respective carloads of coal, failing to make an entry upon the defendant's books covering the demurrage charge, and failing to collect payment for demurrage. The claim that a demurrage charge accrued is based upon a certain tariff published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the tariff is described in the indictment as 'Showing among other things the terminal demurrage charges assessable by said Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company in addition to the transportation charges aforesaid for the detention by or for consignees by reason of the failure of such consignees to release the same of cars used by the said corporation common carriers in the interstate transportation of bituminous coal shipped to Port Richmond (Philadelphia) aforesaid, for transshipment at that point direct to vessel when held for or by consignees for unloading, forwarding instructions, or for any other purpose, that is to say, showing that the charge for such demurrage was one dollar ($1.00) per car per day or fraction thereof for the time of such detention, such time to be computed as beginning fifteen days (excluding Sundays and holidays) after the first seven a.m. after the date on which notice of arrival is sent to the consignee.'
It is then alleged that:
Immediately prior to the respective dates set out in the counts, 'a certain carload of bituminous coal contained in a car bearing the initials' (varying in each count) 'and the number' (varying in each count) 'which had been shipped to Port Richmond, Philadelphia, aforesaid, for transshipment as aforesaid, was transported over one of the routes aforesaid, from' (place of origin of shipment and route) 'into the said Eastern district of Pennsylvania to Woodlane Yard, a point on the rails of the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, in the state of Pennsylvania, about eight (8) miles from Port Richmond (Philadelphia) aforesaid, the transportation thereof being conducted into said district in the said car consigned to' (name of consignee); 'that on the date last aforesaid a notice of arrival of said car containing said coal was sent by the said Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company from Port Richmond (Philadelphia) aforesaid to the said consignee; that said car was not promptly released by said consignee, but was held for said consignee by said Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company until' (date of end of detention and length of time beyond the free time allowed); 'that after said detention said car was released by said consignee, and said coal was, upon the order of said consignee, dumped from said car into a vessel at Port Richmond (Philadelphia) aforesaid.'
Then follow allegations that a demurrage charge had accrued to and should have been assessed and collected from the consignees in accordance with the tariffs and schedules, and an allegation of failure and neglect to assess any demurrage charge, failure to make or enter a charge upon the books of the defendant, and failure to collect the demurrage.
Then follows an allegation that the defendant transported the carload of coal into the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, 'and by the device of detaining said car at Woodlane Yard aforesaid, and not assessing or collecting demurrage for such detention as hereinbefore set forth, unlawfully did knowingly offer, give and grant to the said consignee a concession * * * in respect to the said transportation in interstate commerce of said coal.'
In indictment No. 20, the same facts are set out as a basis for a charge that the defendant willfully failed to strictly observe the provisions of the established demurrage tariffs.
The demurrer is based upon the contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. General Motors Corporation
...one offense and convicted of another. They also rely upon Asgill v. United States, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 780, and United States v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., D.C., 232 F. 953. These cases are inapplicable, because the first two deal with variance between indictment and proof and the last t......
-
Davidson v. United States
...37 L. Ed. 419; Bartlett v. U. S. (C. C. A. 9) 106 F. 884, 885; Brenner v. U. S. (C. C. A. 2) 287 F. 636, 639; U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (D. C. Pa.) 232 F. 953, 955; U. S. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (D. C. Ky.) 165 F. 936, 938; 31 C. J. p. 659, § In Grimsley v. United States (C. C. A......
-
Jones v. United States
...37 L. Ed. 419; Bartlett v. U. S. (C. C. A. 9) 106 F. 884, 885; Brenner v. U. S. (C. C. A. 2) 287 F. 636, 639; U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (D. C. Pa.) 232 F. 953, 955; U. S. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (D. C. Ky.) 165 F. 936, 938; 31 C. J., p. 659, § In Pettibone v. U. S., supra, the Su......
-
Mohler v. United States
...shall enjoy the right * * * to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; * * *." He then cites United States v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., D.C., 232 F. 953, 955, for the proposition that each fact necessary to constitute the crime charged must be directly and positively Petitio......