US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

In many instances, a man's fate depends upon his rightly estimating, that is as the jury subsequently estimates it, some matter of degree, and there is no constitutional difficulty in the way of enforcing the criminal provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act on the ground of uncertainty as to the prohibitions.

The Sherman Act punishes the conspiracies at which it is aimed on the common law footing, and does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability. In this respect, it differs from § 5440, and the indictment need not aver overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392, distinguished.

This Court can see no reason for reading into the Sherman Act more than it finds there.

It is not necessary for an indictment under the Sherman Act to allege chanrobles.com-red

Page 229 U. S. 374

or prove that all the conspirators proceeded against are traders. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274.

Where the indictment under the Sherman Act allege numerous methods employed by the defendants to accomplish the purpose to restrain trade, it is not necessary, in order to convict, to prove every means alleged, but it is error to charge that a verdict may be permitted on any one of them when some of them would not warrant a finding of conspiracy.

186 F.4d 9 reversed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and sentence for alleged violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, are stated in the opinion.