◆ SpookStack

',0f defn ante and other witn-ssv5, tenuing to Yghov. th t there :cs no violution of the ict. | oe 4 ae tion in the incictmat at its full face value. h.vinz given full faith ans oredit to every - all:-ation in the indictment, the «vestion before tix court iss poca the inciecta-nt tell a story wWidsch Jcuds the court to belisve that there may bs a leritin:ite Llecsal cucstion as t whether dntberstete trade in m:.ilesble fron esstines basa bee. widuly or unreasoniely rostraincd as e Posult of th: concerted notivitics of th: cefen anty and their es.efend nts, auc, if so, docs the otluer al suviittes eversoe such prima fasie e..5e -beve, then, an in. lotacat, which is taken, oo . not us & plendins~, but as evid:-noc, ant shich . 5 alicces thit th:ae defen.anots violsted the sherman ~~ ote. On th: othcr bind, wo hive the tcotinony... “gs * It is not the auty of the oourt to mo _. into the qucstion of cho tells the truth, to reich - testimony, or to co into the «uestion of the. oreb~ = Ability of witaesses, The cuectian for the court : to deternine is, *Is there cvidence of probable ~:~” Sh | enuse?* It never ras th: intention of th: law th:t the court, to wkich application is made for , Fen0val, should sit in Ju.rmca’s onk try th case, . _ _twcrinr the evidcnoe, and p:..8sin= upon the credi- Bility of the witnesecs, sal ultingely dcteraime ° *:, ith. ails or {anocence of/the ecfes. ante Tut da . for th: trinl court, in wiich juricilction the in. fotnuent tas found, end ke could only refuse application rh re it apnpecarc2t thit the excse is ro" triablertihis th: <cistri:-t tar ich &¢ ise soueit tor tave, or tht the eourt is Fithout Juric icvio:, or that th. testimony tholly failed "to estiblish probable 00306 By the least cuslifi- cation this court mcans th.t, if te hud a state .. of facts bre where, notwithstandine this indiocte ent, ,tbcra Fras £o7%° Sak mtiricl d@iterwinative + doat eo €n Bho dove, | pra. si tpe court czuld any, fon acoouut of thi, this inicta-:at mut de brusied | aside,* then the defenisnts could sot be cnovede: 3us sunnose th. t <his oourt should oonccive it to be dts duty to ro into the cuesstion as to Kho is ficht, ‘ould th: court be justifice here in saying that one side &3 richt, rather than the © other, to the extent of sayinn that the avicteoe Gondlusivel.: shoves tht this prins fecle ogse made ie: , out ty the inclotment ds eestroyed?.. Tict is the - ex.cnt $o whic! ¢his ¢éourt jroulé b We %6 #0, that * th. evidenoe here ‘gone Lusively $078, ‘that the £000 pPtaa fucie ease ie destroyet. ~~ Be mE OR @l]2=