Appendix — United States v. Grinnell Corp.
Supreme Court brief1966
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
eS:
ie:
ASA
a
ia
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OctToBER TERM, 1965
No. 73
Unrrep Srates, Appellant,
vs.
GRINNELL CORPORATION, ET AL.
No. 74
GRINNELL Corporation, Appellant,
vs.
UnitTep STATES
No. 75
AMERICAN District TELEGRAPH Company, Appellant,
vs.
UniTep STATES
No. 76
Houmes Execrric Protective Company, Appellant,
vs.
Unritep STATES
No. 77
Automatic Fir—E ALARM CoMPANY OF DeLaware, Appellant,
vs.
UNITED STATES
_ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Volume II
INDEX
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continud
Transcript of trial held in USDC for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston, June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and
GR Ta ns BEF Ar SAE sowie kn Beko sep ohh ta eae
Appearances ...... 1... ee eee eee eee ee
Colloquy and offer in evidence of Government
Exhibits 1 through 307 and objections thereto
Offer in evidence of additional Government Ex-
pe ROE CONC Ee Mien Oe Pee
Colloquy between Court and counsel for defend-
Colloquy between Court and counsel for defend-
Me iid Fad pk ea rey a ee Ree OER ore?
Testimony of Francis Guibert—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
—eross (by Mr. Story)........
—redirect (by Mr. Fritz)......
Ray Brechbill—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)......
Colloquy between Court and counsel off the reeord
Testimony of Ray Brechbill—
—resumed direct (by Mr. Fritz)
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
—redirect (by Mr. Fritz)......
Howard B. Schultz—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
Edward Gaston—
—direct (by Mr. Williams).....
George Simon—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
William Arthur Crichton—
—direet (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
Paul C. Sherer—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
Edward Carrier—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
Lawrence M. De Shane—
—direct (by Mr. Conkling)....
Roy Elliott—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
George L. Martin—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
Henry Fitzgerald—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
Walter Hennessey—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
John Vincent Polio—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
Original Print
462 325
462 325
463 325
470 330
479 335
487 339
498 345
498 345
538 350
594 380
603 385
604 386
611 390
623 396
650 411
651 412
652 412
688 432
707 443
714 447
728 445
746 465
761 473
769 477
772 479
774 480
775 480
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Transcript of trial held in USDC for the District of
Massachusetts, Buston, June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and
24, 1964—Continued
Testimony of Ray Brechbill—Continued
Robert E. Landick—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)...
Thomas Sherman—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)...
Testimony of James 0. Maxey—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
Offers in evidence of defendant ADT and objec-
men: SPO Sais Sia F0 oS BE eee
Offers in evidence of defendant Hulmes Electric
Protective Company and objections thereto. ...
Offers in evidence of defendant AFA and objec-
Gielen WN Foss hash, eis ctiap teins.
Offers in evidence of excerpts from depositions
and objections thereto......................
Testimony of Dariel Francis Collins—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
Walter Joseph Swett, Jr.—
—direct (by Mr. Williams)....
Albert Earl Smith—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
—redirect (by Mr. Fritz)......
Walter Darl Simpson—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
William F. Hable—
—direct (by Mr. Conkling)....
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
Francis C. Evans—
—direct (by Mr. Conkling)....
Janes A. McDonald—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
—cross (by Mr. MeInerney)....
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
Robert J. Fahey—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
Testimony of Andrew M. Ronse—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
Lawrence J. O’Brien—
~ lirect (by Mr. Fritz)........
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
—redirect (by Mr. Fritz)......
Thomas P. Drew—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz)........
—cross (by Mr. Story)........
Original Print
776 481
778 482
783 485
804 496
805 496
805 497
806 497
807 498
811 500
815 502
827 509
836 514
838 515
839 516
885 541
892 544
900 549
952 576
961 581
963 582
982 592
991 596
1005 603
1041 623
1057 632
1059 633
640
iv INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued :
Transcript of trial held in USDC for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston, June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and
24, 1964—Continued
Testimony of Andrew M. Rouse—Continued
John A. Mahoney—
—direct (by Mr. Fritz, Jr.)....
Dr. Jessie William Markham—
—direct (by Mr. Williams).....
James Douglas Fleming—
—direct (by Mr. McInerney)...
—cross (by Mr. Fritz)........
Defendant Grinnell’s motion to strike certain of plain-
is QU 5s BGS OR KO BAGE
Clerk’s note re Joint motion to correct transcript of
Tame, BOs TRG es 5208 eka ya hare ei
Transeript of post-trial argument, October 9, 1964...
Statement by Mr. Fritz on behalf of defendants
ADT, Holmes Electric Protective Company and
BPR BoP OL a Ta
Statement by Mr. McInerney on behalf of Grinnell
Corpomnne 66. eg TE esi
Statement by Mr. Story on behalf of the Govern-
Been se ees ees . leas Bid I ee a vee es
Two letters from Wyzanski, J. to Clerk, Neal D.
Murphy, dated November 27, 1964 listing errors
Web IR, Sl a es icra es
Findings of fact, Conclusions of Law and Opin-
Notice of appeal of plaintiff to the Supreme Court
of the Unite Qtee. 6563s eee re.
Notice of appeal of Defendant Grinnell Corpora-
tion to the Supreme Court of the United States
Notice of appeal of Defendant Holmes Eiectric
Protective Company to the Supreme Court of
in We NN os Fes aeons.
Notice of appeal of Defendant Automatic Fire
Alarm Company of Delaware to the Supreme
Court of the United States..................
Notice of appeal of Defendant American District
Telegraph Company to the Supreme Court of
We Ceres aa oss hi i Sige ck
Application of the United States for an enlargement of
time for docketing case on appeal....................
Order extending time to file...........................
Application of defendants for an extension of time for
docketing case on appeal (excerpts).................
Order extending time to flle...........................
Order noting probable jurisdiction.....................
Original Print
1082 645
1090 650
1129 668
1180 695
1188 699
1194 702
1199 703
1200 703
1221 714
1253 731
1267 738
1270 741
1302 768
1304 770
1308 771
1317 774
1326 778
1335 781
1342 784
1344 785
1345 786
1349 787
INDEX v
Exhibit Volume I
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOVERNMENT’s EXHIBITS
No. 1—NBFU No. 71, Standard of the National
Board of Fire Underwriters for the Installation,
Maintenance and Use of Central Station Pro-
tective Signaling Systems for Watchman, Fire
Alarm and Supervisory Service as recommended
by the National Fire Protection Association,
July, 1958 and July, 1959 Amendments....... 1351 789
No. 2—NBFU No. 72—Standard of the National
Board of Fire Underwriters for the Installation,
Maintenance and Use of Proprietary, Auxiliary,
Remote Station, and Local Protective Signaling
Mpeteien, Fey THE ox vnss vas vo + 3 RR 1375 813
No. 3—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL 611),
Standards for Safety, Central Station Burglar
Alarm Systems, December, 1956.............. 1405 843
No. 4—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Accident,
Automotive, and Burglary Protection Equip-
ment Lists, September, 1961................. 1439 877
No. 5—Manual of Burglary Insurance, Pages 212-
215; 333-396; 417 and 418... .........35%.. 1574 1012
No. 6—Approved Equipment for Industrial Fire
Protection, 1962-1963, Associated eisai Mu-
tual Fire Insurance Companies..........:.. 1584 1022
Exhibit Volume II
No. 7—Introductory letter from ADT General
Commercial Manager, A. E. Smith to Commer-
cial Superintendents and Representatives, dated
March 30, 1953 transmitting proposed ADT
Sales Manual, “Selling ADT Service” (ex-
GM Ae A aes 1742 1179
No. 9—Agreement dated March 1, 1907 between
ADT and the Brooklyn Telegraph and Messen-
ger Company, Brooklyn, New York (excerpts) 1753 1187
No. 10—ADT acquisition agreement of the Mer-
chants Fire & Dispatch Company, Los Angeles,
California, dated August 1, 1907 (excerpts)... 1763 1189
No. 11—ADT acquisition agreement of the
Bankers’ Eleetric Protective Company and
American Bank Protection Company, dated
Jane TE WO Saat AS 1769 1191
No. 12—ADT acquisition agreement of the Pink-
erton National Detective Agency and Pinker-
ton’s Protective Patrol, dated February 21, 1908
1194
vi INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’S Exxuisits—Continued Original Print
No. 13—ADT acquisition agreement of The Still
Alarm Company, dated September 6, 1913 (ex-
I iis rnc fn Woe aks eo ya ite he oes vee 4 1777_—s «1195
No. 14—ADT acquisition agreement of the Man-
hattan Fire Alarm Company, dated April 9,
pi | Be eae coreg ane ee 1783 1196
No. 15—ADT acoaisition agreement of The Still
Alarm Compauy, dated November 27, 1918 (ex-
may a ig Pp Ge ARS Rae at 1787 = 1198
No. 16—ADT acquisition agreement of the Pacific
Messenger Company, dated September 9, 1926
CUI. Foo er ee cree c Ee iv is habe. ve 1789 =: 11199
No. 17—ADT acquisition agreement of the Ameri-
ean Still Alarm of Detroit, dated September 29,
Re RUNING a secs Shen et rep ie siete: 1793 1200
No. 18—ADT acquisition agreement of the Balti-
more National Automatic Fire Alarm Company
of Baltimore City, dated April 26, 1928 (ex-
CR a AG Se eae i eas 1798 1202
No. 19—ADT acquisition agreement of the Spo-
kane Alarm Company of Spokane, Washington,
dated August 30, 1928 (excerpts)............ 1808 1203
No. 20—ADT acquisition agreement of the Reli-
ance Electric Protective Company, Chicago, Illi-
nois, dated November 16, 1931 (excerpts)..... 1809 1204
No. 21—ADT acquisition agreement of the Los
Fire Alarm Company, Los Angeles, California,
dated January 13, 1933 (excerpts)......... . 1810 1205
No. 22—ADT acquisition agreement of the Lewis
Signal and Alarm Corporation, Sioux City,
Iowa, dated August 8, 1934 (excerpts)....... 1811 1206
No. 23—ADT acquisition agreement of the Signal
Protective Service Company, St. Louis, Mis-
souri, dated February 8, 1935 (excerpts)..... 1816 1208
No. 24—ADT acquisition agreement of the Auto-
matie Alarms, Ltd., Los Angeles, California,
dated July 15, 1936 (excerpts).............. 1824 1209
Ne 25—ADT acquisition agreement of the Los
Angeles Central Station, Inc., Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, dated May 20, 1938 (excerpts) . 1829 1210
No. 26-1—ADT acquisition agreement of the Reli-
ance Alarm Company, (R. Houghton) Detroit,
Michigan, dated August 9,1946 ..... 1835 1211
26-2—ADT acquisition agreement of the Reli-
ance Alarm Company, (Peter Bens) Detroit,
Michigan, dated August 9,1946.............. 1837s «11213
INDEX Vii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOVERNMENT’s ExHIBITs—Continued Original Print
26-3—Schedule Showing Computation of Pur-
chase: PYIMB i 656 36 SEN Re ES as ed 1839 1216
No. 27—ADT acquisition agreement of the Ameri-
can District Telegraph Company of Hamilton
County, Ohio, dated October 28, 1946 (excerpts) 1840 1217
No. 28-1—ADT acquisition agreement of the Lud-
low Automatic Fire Alarm Company, Cinein-
nati, Ohio, dated October 28, 1946 (excerpts).. 1847 1220
28-2—Memorandum for J. A. MacDonald, Audi-
tor Re: Purchase of Ludlow Companies, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, dated December 2, 1946 (ex-
QE 2 G2 ie is DEES Es 1854 1223
No. 29—ADT acquisition agreement of the Crown
Burglar Alarm Systems, Pasadena, California,
dated May 13, 1954 (excerpts)............... 1857 1224
No. 30-1—ADT acquisition agreement of the
Globe Electric Protection Company, Ocean City,
New Jersey, dated June 8, 1954.............. 1863 1227
30-2—Letter from Ray Brechbill to Harold H.
Gray, Globe Electric Protective, dated June 15,
1954 re amendments to agreement............ 1866 1231
No. 31—ADT acquisition agreement of the Gen-
eral Alarm Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts,
dated March 9, 1955 (excerpts).............. 1867 1232
No. 32—ADT acquisition agreement of the Fed-
eral Automatic Alarm Co., Inc., Albuquerque,
New Mexico, dated June 10, 1959 (excerpts).. 1869 1233
No. 37—Holmes acquisition agreement of the Mer-
cantile Burglar Alarm Company, New York,
New York, dated December 15, 1925 (excerpts) 1873 1236
No. 38—Holmes acquisition agreement of the
Metropolitan Electric Protective Company, New
York, New York, dated August 3, 1928 (ex-
COND 2 i RAN A Ca nn Se Bea Es 1875 1237
No. 39—Holmes acquisition agreement of the
Silent Electric Protective Corporation, New
York, New York, dated December 14, 1928 (ex-
CNN 55 68S OIG AE Fi a 1889 1249
No. 40—ADT acquisition agreement of the Los
Angeles Central Station, Inc., Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, dated May 20, 1938 (excerpts)........ 1893 1251
No. 41—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Ward to ADT Vice President J. A. MacDonald,
captioned, Lewis System-Sioux City, Iowa,
dated November 19, 1951................... 1901 1254
viii INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’S Exuisits—Continued Original Print
No. 42—ADT acquisition agreement of the prop-
erty interest of Automatic Fire Protection Com-
pany in the 1907 allocation agreements, dated
January 1, 1949 (excerpts).................. 1902 1255
No. 43—Memorandum by ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith reporting on Meeting with owners
of Central Watch Service (Stackler), Chicago,
Illinois, dated February 10, 1960 (excerpts)... 1917 1267
No. 44—Memorandum from ADT Assistant to
General Sales Manager L. B. Straus to ADT
General Sales Manager L. J. O’Brien, cap-
tioned, Tulsa, Oklahoma, dated April 14, 1960 1922 1270
No. 45—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to ADT President E. Gaston, dated
BF, TR RR ESE 1923 = 1271
No. 46—Memorandum by ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith captioned, Report on Tampa Sig-
nal Co., Ine. (Florida Corporation) dated
Mai Si SIRO F i ES 1929 1275
No. 47—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to ADT Vice President J. A. Mac-
Donald, captioned, Tampa Signal Company,
Ine., dated August 31, 1960................. 1936 1281
No. 48—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. O. Betscher to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Tampa,
Florida, dated March 20, 1961............... 1938 1282
No. 49—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to President E. Gaston, captioned
Tampa Signal Company, Inc., dated March 23,
ye ee is 1940 1283
No. 50—Letter from ADT President E. Gaston to
President H. G. Clark of the Rhode Island Elec-
tric Protective Company, dated October 1, 1958 1942 1284
No. 51—Letter from President H. G. Clark of
Rhode Island Electric Protective Company to
ADT President E. Gaston, dated July 8,1955.. 1944 1286
No. 52—Letter from ADT President E. Gaston to
President H. G. Clark of the Rhode Island Elec-
tric Protective Co., dated June 16, 1955....... 1945 1287
No. 53—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to First Vice President J. A. Mac-
Donald, captioned, Rhode Island Electrie Pro-
tective Company, dated July 28, 1958........ 1946 1288
No. 54—Letter from Holmes President H. C.
Ward to The Stockholders of Newark District
Telegraph Company, dated July 7, 1960...... 1948 1290
INDEX 1x
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued Origiaal Print
No. 55—Unsigned handwritten notes entitled
“Board of Directors Meeting, February 20,
1958”, obtained from the files of Holmes...... 1955 1295
No. 56—Letter from AFA President T. P. Drew
to Grinnell President J. D. Fleming, dated May
20, TONG ah TAS as Bs: 1959 1296
No. 57—Letter from AFA President T. D. Drew
to Central Station Signals, Inc., dated February
316, MRR BREA SRS 1962 1299
No. 58—Memorandum for File by ADT President
E. Gaston, captioned, Central Station Signals,
Ine., New York, N.Y., dated May 22, 1959.... 1967 1303
No. 59—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston, entitled, Appendix to President’s Re-
port for Meeting of November 19, 1958, dated
Noventber 30, A008 |. ..33..20 22 OAS 8, 1969 1305
No. 60—Letter agreement from AFA to The
Stockholders of Central Station Signals, Inc.,
dated December, 1960....................... 1971 1306
No. 61—Agreement between ADT and Holmes,
dated September 28, 1906................... 1979 1312
No. 62—Agreement between ADT and Holmes,
dated Mareh 20, 1018... .:...2:.... 20.0008: 1983 1315
No. 63—Agreement between ADT and Holmes,
Gated: Fame By WR as bi UR is 1992 1322
No. 64—Agreement between ADT and Holmes,
dated Mauch 3; I00F ioc 83 tk oe 2000 1329
No. 65—Letter from Holmes President A. W.
Allen to ADT President C. C. Johnson, dated
Fame 1B; WR oi ewer ates. 2005 1335
No. 66—Letter from “President” to Holmes Presi-
dent A. W. Allen, dated July 8, 1932........ 2006 1336
No. 67—Letter from ADT Vice President C. C.
Johnson to Holmes President H. S. Stevens,
dated January 31, 1924................... 2007 1337
No. 68—Letter from Holmes President H. s.
Stevens to ADT Vice President C. C. Johnson,
dated February 4, 1924..................... 2008 1338
No. 69—Agreement between ADT and Holmes, .
dete Masel: 36, 1000: 2... 68503. eT x 2009 8 1338
No. 70—Letter from ADT Sales Representative
J. A. Summers to Holmes Vice President W. F.
Burress, dated June 11, 1956................ - 2012 1341
No. 71—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to General Sales Man-
ager L. J. O’Brien, captioned Gerard Trust
Company, Philadelphia Area, dated March 31,
1343
x INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’S ExuHisirs—Continued
No. 72—Letter from ADT President C. C. John-
son to Holmes President A. W. Allen, dated
No. 73—Letter from ADT General Commercial
Manager A. E. Smith to ADT Commercial
Superintendent D. R. Hall, captioned, Ford
Motor Company, Parts Warehouse, Pittsburgh,
Pa., dated May 12, 1953....................
No. 74—Letter from ADT Sales Representative
No. 75—Letter from Holmes “President” to ADT
President C. C. Johnson, dated June 28, 1939. .
No. 76—Letter from ADT President C. C. John-
son to Holmes President A. W. Allen, dated
pe A eee ar One Por MT ae
No. 77—Letter from ADT Special Representative
H. E. May to L. E. Burke, Sears, Roebuck and
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated
Gotebet: Si. 208s 8 tat.
No. 78—Agreement dated February 18, 1904 be-
tween Robert L. McElroy and ADT..........
No. 79—Agreement dated April 2), 1905 between
Robert L. McElroy and Automatic Fire Pro-
tenthen:: eae i sb Nee ais oi
No. 80A, B, C—Three Agreements dated April 29,
1907 between Grinnell, ADT, AFA and the
Automatic Fire Protection Company ........
No. 81—Agreement dated June 13, 1913 between
ADT, Automatic Fire Protection Company and
Fire Protection Development Company ......
No. 82—Letter agreement between ADT and Gen-
eral Fire Extinguisher Company (Grinnell)
dated June SD, 3008.5 ibs Fae
No. 83—Letter agreement between ADT and Gen-
eral Fire Extinguisher Company (Grinnell)
Gnted: June 4; 1008.3... reek
No. 84—Agreement dated February 18, 1954 be-
tween ADT and AFA......................
No. 85—Memorandum for File, by ADT Vire
President J. A. MacDonald, captioned, Grinnell
Corporation Negotiation, dated October 8, 1951
No. 86—Memorandum from Grinnell Counsel
R. T. Clapp to Grinnell President J. D. Flem-
ing, captioned, ADT Matter, dated November
We ree ta SS AEN ey
Original
2018
1345
1346
1348
1350
1351
1352
1353
1361
1362
1387
1396
1397
1398
1402
1421
INDEX x1
Record from the Uuited States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovernMENT’s Exxisits—Continued Original = Print
No. 87—Memorandum from Grinnell Counsel
R. T. Clapp to Grinnell President J. D. Flem-
ing, captioned, ADT Matter, dated January 5,
ORs Sete ee Hea 2100 8 1425
No. 88—Memorandum of Grinnell Secretary and
Counsel R. T. Clapp entitled, Memorandum of
Conference at Mr. Ward’s Office, American Dis-
trict Telegraph Company, June 9, 1948, dated
Same 3h, WOR. COS OR RK a. 2105 1430
No. 89—Agreement dated December 29, 1952, be-
tween ADT and Grinnell.................... 2108 1434
No. 92—Letter from ADT President E. Gaston to
Grinnell Treasurer C. H. Rison dated June 19,
IO. otc bit eS ee ie as 2148 1471
No. 93—Letter from ADT President E. Gaston to
AFA President T. P. Drew dated January 13,
DO 525 BCEAO SRE. BI 2150 1473
No. 94—Letter from AFA President T. P. Drew
to Grinnell President J. D. Fleming dated Feb-
wpa Be, FI 5 55 ERE, ie 2160 1483
No. 95—Letter from ADT President E. Gaston to
Grinnell President J. D. Fleming dated Feb-
Want G, BORN oir 8 RAS 8 2163 1486
No. 96—Memorandum from ADT Controller C. G.
Eicker to Vice President J. A. MacDonald, cap-
tioned—Rate Development—dated June 29,1956 2165 1487
No. 97—Letter from AFA Sales Manager J. J.
Heavey to Davis, Dorland & Co., New York,
N.Y., dated October 5, 1956................. 2191 1518
No. 98—Letter from ADT Anditor J. A. Mac-
Donald to AFA President T. P. Drew, cap-
tioned—Solicitation of Industrial Process Ser-
vice in Conjunction with Sales of 8.8. & W.F.
Service—dated June 10, 1948................ 2192 #81519
No. 104—Letter from ADT Assistant Secretary
E. A. Gaston to AFA President T. P. Drew,
eaptioned—Albert H. Voight, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pa.—dated July 7, 1961..................... 2194 1521
No. 107—Letter from Grinnell Secretary R. T. ;
Clapp to AFA President T. P. Drew dated May
SA OB oss ei GES, 6a Ok A Oa AeA 2195 1522
No. 1°.1—Agreement dated December 24, 1953 be-
tween ADT, AFA and Grinnell.............. 2196 §©1523
No. 112—Letter from T. P. Drew, President of
AFA to F. J. Lehner, L. W. Thomason, F. Dur-
ward Chass and A. G. Seddon, dated December
21, 1954 re transmittal of Letter Agreement
dated December 15, 1954 between ADT, AFA
OE IN 03s carte a oy ec os Ke dale Faas 2200 1525
xii
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOVERNMENT’ Exuisits—Continued
No. 128—Agreement dated March 29, 1954 be-
tween ADT, Grinnell and the Rhode Island
Electric Protective Company................
No. 129—Agreement dated March 29, 1954 be-
tween ADT and the Rhode Island Electric Pro-
Suan: Qe ie ES VR eS
No. 130—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
J. A. MaeDonald to ADT Secretary John Han-
non dated December 10, 1953................
No. 131—Letter from ADT Vice President A. E.
Smith to President H. G. Clark of the Rhode
Island Electric Protective Company dated De-
eenielh She Wis i si ESR a yes
No. 132—Letter from Rhode Island Electrie Pro-
tective Company President H. G. Clark to ADT,
dated February 5,1963...............05.....
No. 133—Letter from Rhode Island Electric Pro-
tective Company President H. G. Clark to Grin-
nell, dated January 19, 1961.................
No. 139—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competition-
Washington District, dated September 14, 1956
No. 140—Memorandum from ADT Superintend-
ent of Field Service R. T. Warner to ADT
General Commercial Manager A. E. Smith,
eaptioned, Competition-Milwaukee, dated May
OF FR RE SON EL PEAS.
No. 141—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager W. K. Francis to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competition-
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Los Angeles,
California, dated August 10,1956............
No. 142—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager W. K. Francis to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Paramount
Pictures Corporation, Los Angeles, California,
eee eee.
No. 143—Memorandum from ADT Assistant to
General Sales Manager W. W. Dooley entitled,
Report on Survey of Sales Potential, San Jose
Peninsula, (Not dated).....................
No. 144—Memorandum from ADT District Man-
agers to ADT General Managers, captioned,
Competition-Peoria, Illinois, dated December 12,
eae leo est ast es
Original
2218
2220
2221
2227
2229
2230
2232
1534
1540
1542
1543
1545
1546
1549
1550
1552
1554
1556
INDEX xiii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s ExuisiTts—Continued Original Print
No. 145—Handwritten confidential memoranda
from ADT Representative W. Rohlfing cap-
tioned Call’s Police Signal, Chelsea, Massachu-
setts, dated July 16, 1956................... 2238 1559
No. 146—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager R. T. Warner to ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith, captioned, Call’s Police Signal
Corporation, Chelsea, Mass., dated September
OA TON she tak kd AS cS 2242 1561
No. 147—Memorandum (unsigned) to ADT Dis-
trict Sales Manager E. Turnbull, captioned,
Competition; Merchants Police, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, dated July 30, 1955.............. 2243 1562
No. 148—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative R. P. Lucy to ADT District Sales
Manager W. K. Francis, captioned Competition-
Bay Burglar Alarm Company, dated March 28,
W008 Sa SOROS ERS 2245 1564
No. 149—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager W. K. Francis to ADT Commercial
Superintendent E. B. White, captioned General
Plant Protection Company, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, dated May 15, 1952.................. 2246 1565
No. 150—Memorandum from ADT District Man-
agers to ADT General Managers, captioned
Proposed Central Station-Anaheim (Orange
County) California, dated July 26, 1960..... 2247 1567
No. 151—Memorandum from ADT General Su-
perintendent, Operating Department to ADT
Vice President J. A. MacDonald, captioned,
Proposed Central Station, San Jose, California,
dated March 24, 1959....................... 2250 1570
No. 152—Memorandum from ADT General Su-
perintendent of Plant W. Hable to ADT Gen-
eral Sales Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned,
Proposed Central Station-San Jose, California,
dated March 20, 1959....................... 2251 1571
No. 153—Memorandum from ADT District Man-
agers to ADT General Managers, captioned Pro-
posed Central Station-San Diego, California,
dated March 4, 1959........................ 2252 1572
No. 154—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to ADT Vice President J. A. Mac-
Donald dated August 3,1960................ 2254 1575
xiv
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GoveRNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued
No. 155—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to ADT Vice President J. A. Mae-
Donald, captioned, Proposed New Central Sta-
tion-San Fernando Valley-Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, dated July 12,1961..................
No. 156—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to ADT Vice President J.A. Mac-
Donald, captioned Proposed New Central Sta-
tion, Huntington Park, Los Angeles, dated June
Fe pee oe) Oo eee rs a
No. 157—Memorandum from ADT District Man-
agers to ADT General Managers, captioned Pro-
posed Central Station, New Brunswick, New
Jersey, dated July 13, 1959 (excerpts).......
No. 158—Memorandum from ADT Executive Ac-
count Representative F. J. Concannon to ADT
General Sales Manager L. J. O’Brien, cap-
tioned, New Central Station, Nassau County,
Long Island City, N.Y., dated August 17, 1955
No. 159—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
J. A. MacDonald to ADT General Commercial
Manager A. E. Smith, captioned, Possible Estab-
lishment of Central Station at Jamaica, Long
Island, dated April 14, 1952.................
No. 160—Memorandum from ADT District Man-
agers to ADT General Managers, captioned,
Proposed New Central Station, San Fernando
Valley, dated July 26,1960..................
No. 161—Memorandum from ADT District Plant
Superintendent J. F. Burns to W. Hable, cap-
tioned, Proposed sub-divisions of existing Cen-
tral Stations-New York District, dated Decem-
PE BARN ERR ee eines.
No. 163—Memorandum from ADT Director of
Diversification & Expansion J. J. Stephens to
ADT Vice President A. E. Smith, captioned,
Sales Potential, Westchester County, New York,
dated December 20, 1957....................
No. 164—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
to ADT President Gaston, captioned, Charlotte,
North Carolina, dated July 6,1960...........
No. 167—Memorandum from ADT First Vice
President J. A. MacDonald to ADT Controller
C. G. Hicker, captioned, Rate Development,
dated July 12, 1956.
No. 168—Memorandum by “ADT Vice President
J. A. MacDonald, captioned, Rate Adjustment
1959, dated November 10, 1959..............
Original
2261
2264
2267
2268
1576
1578
1581
1583
1585
1587
1592
1594
1599
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued
No. 169—Memorandum from ADT First Vice
President J. A. MacDonald to ADT Vice Presi-
dent A. E. Smith, captioned, Minimum Basic
Annual Service Charges, dated December 22,
OUD isis ie as SR ee eee Men ss
No. 170—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to ADT First Vice President J. A. Mac-
Donald, captioned Rate Development, dated
Daly 1d, MAG chee 86 idk. PR EOEER
No. 171—Memorandum by Holmes President
H. C. Ward, entitled, Holmes Electric Protec-
tive Company of Philadelphia, Proposed 1957
Electric Protective Service Rate Revision, dated
February 18, 1957 (excerpts)................
No. 172—Memorandum by Holmes President
H. C. Ward, entitled, Revision of Electric Pro-
tective Service Rates Proposed for Adoption
for Mercantile and Residence Services, May 1,
1953, and for Financial Institution Service June
1, 1953, dated February 25, 1953.............
No. 173—Memorandum for File (unsigned) cap-
tioned, Projected Cash Resources and their Ap-
plication, Five year Period ending December 31,
DOOD ik. inte sis Cap ed WIA, AG eee etek
No. 174—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. Turnbull to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned Sales Produc-
tion-Integrity of Service Charges, dated Sep-
tontben BF: BOOG .a'. céwiawh. das deasielie
Exhibit Volume III
No. 175—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Albany, New York (excerpts) ...
No. 176—Contract Data Reports for Atlanta,
Georgia (excerpts).................000000ee
No. 177—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Boston, Massachusetts (excerpts) . .
No. 178—Contract Data Reports for Buffalo, New
York (excerpts) .
No. 179—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Chicago, Illinois (excerpts)......
No. 180—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports tor Cincinnati, Ohio (excerpts). ....
No. 181—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Cleveland, Ohio (excerpts)......
Original
2302
2316
1608
1611
1612
1617
1619
1626
1629
1635
1642
1665
1677
1700
1716
xvi INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovernMENT’s Exuisits---Continued Original = Print
No. 182—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Dallas, Texas (excerpts)......... 2445 1738
No. 183—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Dayton, Ohio (excerpts).... .... 2470 1755
No. 184—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Denver, Colorado (excerpts)...... 2486 1766
No. 185—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Detroit, Michigan (excerpts)..... 2500 1780
No. 186—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Houston, Texas (excerpts)....... 2515 1790
No. 187—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Indianapolis, Indiana (excerpts).. 2527 1801
No. 188—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Los Angeles, California (excerpts) 2551 1813
No. 189—Contract Data Reports for Louisville,
Kentucky (excerpts)...................... 2566 1823
No. 190—Contract Data Reports for Memphis,
Tennessee (excerpts)....................... 2576 1831
No. 191—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Milwaukee, Wisconsin (excerpts).. 2589 1839
No. 192—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Minneapolis, Minnesota (excerpts) 2619 1855
No. 193--Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Newark, New Jersey (excerpts)... 2632 1864
No. 194—Contract Data Reports for New
Orleans, Louisiana (excerpts).......... 2644 1872
No. 195—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for New York, New York (excerpts).. 2653 1879
No. 196—Contract Data Reports for Omaha, Ne-
braska (excerpts)......... ........ 2670 1895
No. 197—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Peoria, Illinois (excerpts)... .. 2678 1901
No. 198—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ex-
a: 1 es ae KEE Eso CIN Sy ewes eT nh 2686 1906
No. 199—Contract Data Reports for Portland,
Oregon (excerpts).................. 2696 §=1915
No. 200—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for San Francisco, California (ex-
eae. ities, uy hc cca Woe A» 2704 1922
No. 201—Contract Data Reports for Seattle,
Washington (exeerpts).............. 2710 1928
No. 202—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for St. Louis, Missouri (excerpts) . 2720 1935
No. 203—Contract Data Reports and Competition
Reports for Washington, D. C. (excerpts)... 2731 1945
INDEX xvii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GoveRNMENT’s ExuipiTs—Continued Original Print
No. 206—Report on ADT General Sales Meeting
April 6, 7 and 8, 1955, at the New York Athletic
Cea ia hk BES ORS Sis cto. Fai 2748 1961
No. 208—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
to ADT President E. Gaston, captioned, Service
Charges—Proposed Revision, dated November
DA: ROR eR Phin aris 2778 2003
No. 209—Memorandum for File by ADT Vice
President J. A. MacDonald, captioned, Rate
Development, dated November 17, 1955....... 2780 2006
No. 210—Memorandum for File by ADT Vice
President, J. A. MacDonald, captioned, Rate
Adjustments 1959, dated November 10, 1959.. 2784 2012
No. 212—Directive issued by ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith and Concurred in by ADT Presi-
dent E. Gaston to ADT District Sales Managers,
captioned, Delegation of Authority, with Sup-
plement, issued on July 1,1960.............. 2785 2013
No. 213—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to ADT General Sales Manager L. J.
O’Brien, captioned R. H. Macy, Paramus, N. J.,
dated December 29, 1955.................... 2791 2020
No. 214—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative D. M. Gates. to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative Alex Gaston, captioned,
McAlpin Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, dated
Be FE BO ec es iA EOE ARs o 2792 2021
No. 215—Memorandum from ADT Commercial
Superintendent J. B. Bodley to ADT General
Sales Manager A. E. Smith, captioned, Federal
Engineering Co., Inc., Washington, D. C., dated
November 14, 1952...................... 2793 2022
No. 216—Memorancam from ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien to ADT District Sales
Manager W. J. Robinson, captioned, Competi-
tion, Fidelity Electronics Protective Service,
Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, dated March 14, 1961 2794 2023
No. 217—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, National Pro-
tective Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, dated
Cubaian Bis) TOR a HI RH 2795 2024
No. 218—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. Turnbull to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competi-
tion—Autocall and Automatic Alarm, Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, dated March 13, 1959 2796 2025
xviii
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s ExHisits—Continued
No. 219—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager J. D. Patton to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competi-
tion—Fort Worth, dated December 22, 1958...
No. 220—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative R. W. Rice to ADT District Sales
Manager J. D. Patton, captioned, New District
Account—Letellier-Phillips Paper. Co., New
Orleans, La., dated January 14, 1960.........
No. 221—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT Sales Repre-
sentative L, F. Lytle, captioned, Reliable Stores
Corp., Washington, D. C., dated November 22,
MOOG SA CSA et oiees.
No. 222—Comparative Summary of Percentages
of Minimum Basic Charges Secured at each
ADT central station in the United States for
the years 1957 through 1961.................
No. 223—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Mausger A. 8. Jacks to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competi-
tion—Dayton, Ohio, Liberal — ine,
dated August &, 10@1... .. 2. 66.5. eee.
No. 224—Memorandum from ADT Commercial
Superintendent J. B. re to ADT General
Commercial Manager A. E. Smith, captioned,
Federal Engineering Co., Washington, D.. C.,
dated Jane:0, 1008: 82. eee ce EE.
No. 225—Memorandum from ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien to ADT District Saies
Manager J. K. Scott, captioned, York Profes-
sional Pharmacy, Los Angeles, California, dated
Sele Th MGs Rei as
No. -227—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competition
(rumored) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated
Cetebal: BRIO sis eciesiecien ens...
No. 228—ADT central station protection service
Contract Forms for Watchman’s Reporting and
Manual Fire Alarm Service, Automatic Fire
Alarm Service, Sprinkler Supervisory and
Waterflow Alarm Service and Burglary and
Ho!dup Protection Service.............
No. 229—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager C. L. Chafee to ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith, captioned, Regional Sales Confer-
ences and District Sales Meeting 1955, dated
DN TI OO ores fective
Original
2799
2811
2813
2814
2815
2818
2033
2039
2041
2043
2047
INDEX xix
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOVERNMENT'S Exuisits—Continued Original § Print
No. 230—Memorandum from ADT Controller
C. G. Eieker to ADT First Vice President J. A.
MacDonald, captioned, Tampa, Florida, dated
Bepteiaber 11, oo A 2823 2057
No. 231—Memorandum from ADT Vice President
J. A. MaeDonald to ADT Controller C. G.
Kicker, captioned, Advance Service Charge for
Sprinkler Supervisory and Waterflow Alarm
Services, dated August 5, 1953.............. 2828 2063
No. 232—Memorandum (unsigned) entitled,
Charges Proposed by Commercial Department
for all types of Sprinkler Supervisory and
Waterflow Alarm Service and Waterflow Only
Gervies: Cast: Gitee) os es ea ea Sees. 2829 2064
No. 233—Memorandum from ADT Controller
C. G. Eicker to ADT First Vice President J. A.
MacDonald, captioned, Rate Development, dated
Sab Wh TS: 2 SS RRS 2833 2069
No. 234—Memorandum from ADT Controller
C. G. Kicker to ADT First Vice President J. A.
MacDonald, captioned, Rate Development, dated
Bees BRR: oo ESCA AES: 2835 2070
No. 235—ADT Tabulation (unsigned) entitled,
Proposed Revision in Advance Service Charges
SAB REE RE. 2837 2074
No. 236—Annual Report of the Holmes Electric
Protective Company and Subsidiaries for the
your 100) (eneerpe) oo eS SS 2840 2075
No. 237—Memorandum from ADT Commercial
Superintendent E. O. Betscher to ADT General
Commercial Manager A. E. Smith, dated May
6 WE 3 NR OR ES aa 2845 2076
No. 238—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to ADT General Sales Manager R.
Brechbill, captioned, Owl Protective Company,
Long Island City, N.Y., dated November 7, 1962 2847 2079
No. 239—Memorandum for File by ADT Vice
President AES, captioned, Competition, Call’s
Police Signal Co., Chelsea, Massachusetts, dated
July 26, 1956 -........... OES ge ae 2080
No. 240—Memorandum from ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien to ADT District Sales
Manager A. S. Jacks, captioned, Competition,
Buffalo, New York, dated September 8, 1959.. 2850 2082
xx INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOVERNMENTS ExuisiTts—Continued Original Print
No. 241—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager R. T. Warner to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Cole-Hersee
Company, South Boston, Massachusetts, dated
Dae GTN? 5. ce isi ese sks 2851 2082
No. 242—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative G. V. Roach to ADT Assistant to
General Sales Manager R. Brechbill, captioned,
Quality Wool Quilting Corp., Astoria, New
York, dated August 8, 1961................. 2853 2084
No. 243—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT Special Repre-
sentative H. E. May, captioned, Bellevue Strat-
ford Hotel and Benjamin Franklin Hotel, Phila-
delphia, Pa., dated September 23, 1960........ 2854 2085
No. 244—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative R. F. Michiel, Sr., to ADT District
Sales Manager E. Turnbull, captioned, Request
for Competitive Quotation to Secure Agreement
for SS & WFA with a new Subscriber, Mil-
waukee Forge and Machine Company, dated
Jali GWM 5s, tts 26 os 2855 2086
No. 245—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager R. T. Warner to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Raymond’s,
Inc., South Boston, Mass., dated August 9, 1958 2857 2088
No. 246—Memorandum from AFA Commercial
Representative J. J. Way to AFA Vice Presi-
dent L. W. Thomason, captioned, Morris Fish-
man & Sons, Ine., Philadelphia, Pa., dated No-
We TE ION oS OS ew 2859 2090
No. 247—Memorandum from ADT Special Repre-
sentative F. E. Miller to ADT District Sales
Manager E. Turnbull, captioned, Continental
Can Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated
Same Mi MOM coos 5 oe etn nis e0's 2860 2091
No. 248—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative A. A. Balestrino to ADT District Sales
Manager A. 8S. Jacks, captioned, Hyde Park
Lumber Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, dated July 28,
WO ei 82 eee wa geek Li 2862 2092
No. 250—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Man-
ager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Nationwide Safti
Brake Co., Falls Church, Virginia, dated April
Bi Rs soo Re es ce Fk eRe Ss 2863 2094
No. 251—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative C. J. Lawson to ADT Disirict Sales
Manager D. R. Hall, dated January 14, 1958.. 2865 2096
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’S ExHIBITs—Continued
No. 252—Memorandum from ADT First Vice
President J. A. MacDonald to ADT President
E. Gaston, captioned, Maleolm Goldstone, Owl
Protective Co., dated February 9, 1962........
No. 253—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager J. K. Swanson to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Wright-
Bachman, Ine., Indianapolis, Indiana, dated
Goplembes 33, 2008 5. 2 Te
No. 254—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative W. J. King to ADT Special Repre-
sentative H. E. May, captioned, Phileo Dis-
tributors, Ine., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated
Weboumny 16, 3008 6 oe OS.
No. 255—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative B. W. Henke to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative F. J. Concannon, cap-
tioned, American Brass Company, Cleveland,
Ohio, dated April 19, 1956..................
No. 256—ADT General Instructions No. 77, en-
titled, Contract Procedures, issued July 11, 1960
No. 257—Memorandum from ADT Special Repre-
sentative J. R. Norris to ADT Commercial Su-
perintendent C. L. Chafee, captioned, National
Can Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, dated July 23, 1954
No. 258—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative S. J. Sievers to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative H. Schultz, captioned,
Foley’s, Houston, Texas, dated September 22,
No. 259—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative J. P. Dunn to ADT National Accounts
Representative F. J. Concannon, captioned,
Johns-Manville Corp., Los Angeles, California,
Gated Jens 16, OOO. ok eS eae.
No. 260—Letter from A. F. Greenwood of Gov-
ernment Employees Exchange, Inc., to D. R.
White, Albany Protective Service, Albany, New
York, dated August 7, 1961.................
Exhibit Volume IV
No. 261—Memorandum from ADT Manager,
Field Service Division, R. Brechbill to ADT
General Manager of Sales Production L. J.
O’Brien, captioned, Procter & Gamble Com-
pany, Cincinnati, Ohio, Cleveland District Na-
tional Account, dated September 1, 1955 __.
Original
2870
2872
2874
2878
2879
2880
2100
2101
2103
2110
2112
2113
2114
xxii INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GOvERNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued Original Print
No, 264—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative J. D. Patton to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative F. J. Concannon, cap-
tioned, Franklin’s, Dallas, Texas, dated Decem-
WR I he eis redeea ned ioc: 2884 2117
No. 265—Memorandum by ADT Vice President
A. E. Smith to File, captioned, Renewal Agree-
ment, R.K.O. Pictures, Los Angeles, California,
Gobet Set Te, We: i ee co 2885 2118
No. 266—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager R. T. Warner to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, The Van
Heusen Charles Co., Albany, New York, dated
Pens Wi OR oss os a ei 2886 2119
No. 267—Memorandum from ADT Special Repre-
sentative H. E. May to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative F. Concannon, captioned,
American Sugar Refining Company, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, dated December 12, 1961 2887 2120
No. 268—Contract agreement for Alarm Engi-
neering Service of the Dayton Electronics
Alarm and Signal Co., 530 West Second Street,
TR i he BS i in Ree SE eS 2889 2121
No. 269—Memorandum from ADT Special Repre-
sentative H. E. May to ADT Executive Ac-
counts Representative F. J. Concannon, dated
January 18, 1960 (excerpts)................ 2891 2123
No. 270—Memorandum from ADT Special Repre-
sentative H. E. May to ADT Sales Representa-
tive F. Shadell, captioned, Swern & Company-
Lit Brothers, Trenton, dated January 5, 1962.. 2897 2124
No. 271—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Sales
Maaager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, City Stores,
Ine., Philadelphia, Pa., dated January 19, 1960 2898 2125
No. 275—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager L. M. De Shane to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Ralston
Purina Company, Various Locations, U.S.A.,
dated March 4, 1957....................... 2901 2128
No. 276—Annual Report of the American District
Telegraph Company for Fiscal Year 1953 (ex-
rn ORE Dally 7 Cena (7 Hee ens Se Py a 2903 2129
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued
No. 277—Letter from ADT Vice President J. A.
MacDonald to Grinnell Secretary and Counsel
R. T. Clapp, dated July 2,1953..............
No. 278—ADT General Circular No. 222, entitled,
Direct-Connected Fire and Burglar Alarm Ser-
vice, signed by ADT Vice President A. E.
Smith, dated April 27, 1955.................
No. 279—Memorandum from ADT General Com-
mercial Manager A. E. Smith to ADT Commer-
cial Superintendent C. L. Chafee, captioned,
Competition—Automatic Fire Alarm Systems,
Columbus, Ohio, dated March 9, 1953........
No. 280—Memorandum from ADT Assistant Di-
rector of Public Relations R. M. Bugbee to
ADT Director of Public Relations A. W. Sulli-
van, captioned, Proposed Ordinance—City of
Newark, dated December 20, 1962............
No. 281—Memorandum from ADT District Sales
Manager E. J. Heisley to ADT General Sales
Manager L. J. O’Brien, captioned, Competition,
Atlanta, Georgia, dated September 15, 1955...
No. 282—Memorandum from ADT Assistant
Commercial Superintendent, W. K. Francis to
ADT General Commercial Manager A. E.
Smith, captioned, Regional Conferences, June
4-6 and 18-20, 1953, Competition District No. 9,
dated June 9, 1953 (excerpts)...............
No. 283—Memorandum by Holmes Sales Man-
ager, C. K. Empringham to File, captioned,
Malcolm Goldstone, Central Office Alarm Com-
pany, dated April 5, 1962...................
No. 284—Letter from Holmes President H. C.
Ward to Grinnell Secretary and Counsel R. T.
Clapp, dated September 25, 1952............
No. 285—Memorandum from ADT General Com-
mercial Manager A. E. Smith to ADT Com-
mercial Superintendents, captioned, Proprietary
Systems, dated October 5, 1963 (excerpts)...
No. 286—ADT Pamphlet reporting on ADT Pro-
tection Service for 1960 (excerpts)..........
No. 287—Memorandum from ADT First Vice
President J. A. MacDonald to ADT President
E. Gaston, dated June 6, 1957...............
2918
2928
2934
2936
2135
2149
2153
2157
2159
2163
2164
2171
2173
2178
Xxiv INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’S ExnHisits—Continued Original Print
No. 288—Minutes of Meeting of the Burglary
Rating Committee of the National Bureau of
Casualty Underwriters, April 25, 26, 27,1950.. 2972 2181
No. 289—Letter from Holmes President H. C.
Ward to Grinnell Secretary & Counsel R. T.
Clapp, dated October 10, 1952............... 2974 862184
i. 291—ADT Leaflet entitled, Astute Business
Executives are Constantly Proving that it Pays
2 Ways to Protect Property Automatically,
Better Protection and Lower Cost........... 2977 =: 2187
No. 292—Memorandum from ADT Associate Di-
rector of Diversification & Expansion G. E.
Friedli to ADT Director of Diversification &
Expansion J. J. Stephens, captioned, San Jose
Peninsula Survey, dated November 28, 1956... 2973 2189
No. 294—Memorandum from ADT Commercial
Superintendent C. L. Chafee to ADT General
Commercial Manager A. E. Smith, captioned,
Competition—Cincinnati, Ohio, dated Septem-
We Ra sks ick esis eR i ee 2981 2191
No. 295—Memorandum from ADT President E.
Gaston to ADT Vice President A. E. Smith,
captioned San Diego, California, dated October
OE eS a I ee ss. 2982 2192
No. 296—ADT Acquisition Agreement of the
United Electric Service Company, New York,
New York, dated July 21, 1931 (excerpts).... 2983 2193
No. 297—ADT Acquisition Agreement of the
Acxiliary Fire Alarm & Telegraph Co., Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, dated March 26, 1930
CNM oid BE Wh SS. 2986 2194
No. 298—AFA central station protection Service
Cenieite Wie os oar ei re SS 2995 2199
No. 299—Memorandum from AFA Vice President
F. D. Chase to AFA President T. P. Drew, cap-
tioned, Competition, dated September 4, 1958.. 2998 2203
No. 300—Memorandum from ADT Sales Repre-
sentative J. J. Viscarde to ADT Assistant to
General Sales Manager J. B. Rodley, captioned,
Ivers-Lee, Newark, New Jersey, dated June 16,
POs eR a eas is 3000 ©2205
No. 302—Memorandum from ADT Government
and Special Sales Division Manager J. 0.
Maxey to ADT General Sales Manager L. J.
O’Brien, captioned, Competition, Owl Protec-
tive Company, New York, New York, dated
ST Se NOS 3 tee hin ish ee eRe ce ds 3001 2206
INDEX xXXV
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exuisits—Continued Original’ Print
No. 303—ADT Leaflet, entitled, Municipalities
Served by ADT Central Stations............ 3003 2208
No. 304—List of Approved Central Station Pro-.
tection Service Companies which were listed by
Underwriters Laboratories, Ine., on December
i asc ens ses gta ee ea phoresis 3007 2216
No. 305—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. list of
approved central station protection companies
with the effective listing date................ 3011 2222
No. 306—Letter from A & P Transport, Inc.,
President E. G. Snow to Joseph Forman, Call’s
Police Signal Corporation, Chelsea, Massachu-
setts, dated July 9, 1950.................... 3018 2228
No. 307—Holmes central station protection ser-
vice contract forms......................525 3019 2229
No. 308—Stipulation No. 1, Stipulation as to the
authority of the documents offered into evidence
yy PR eS aS 3022 2235
No. 309—Stipulation No. 2, Stipulation as to the
volume of commerce across State and District
of Colsebia Tises. .. 205625.) WRK, 3058 2260
No. 310—Stipulation No. 3, Relative market posi-
tion of central station protection service com-
panies in Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Cer-
tifieated central. station burglar alarm service.. 3062 2263
No. 311—Stipulation No. 4, Relative market posi-
tion of alarm companies in Underwriters Lab-
oratories, Ine., certificated local burglar alarm
SG oS ee eee 3064 2264
No. 312—Stipulation No. 5, Relative market posi-
tion of central station protection service com-
panies in the approved station protection service
business in the United States................ 3067 2266
No. 313—Designation of answers of the American
District Telegraph Company to interrogatories
propounded by Plaintiff (excerpts).......... 3082 2279
No. 314—Designation of answers of the Holmes
Electric Protective Company to interrogatories
propounded by Plaintiff..................... 3110 2301
No. 315—Designation of answers of the Auto-
matic Fire Alarm Company of Delaware to
interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff....... 3129 2318
No. 316—Designation of answers of the Grinnell
Corporation to interrogatories propounded by
PR 5 ES Pe 3149 2337
No. 317—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
George F. Allebach, Sr., Insurance Rating Bu-
reau of the District of Columbia............ 31.67 2353
xxvil
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GoverNMENT’s Exuipits—Continued Original
No. 318—Excerpts of ae ae testimony of
No. sap Pent of deposition testimony of
James H. Bray, Alarm Signal Company of
Texas
No. 320—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
John D. —— Federal Engineering Com-
pany, Ine
No. 323—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Eugene Curran, Robinson Protective Alarm
Company
No. 324—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Clarence 8. Damon, Damon Alarm Corporation
No. 325—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Clifford T. Davis, Protection Engineering Corp.
No. 326—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
James W. Flotron, Potter Electric Signal Co...
No. 328—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Joseph Forman, Owl Protective Company, Gen-
eral Burglar Alarm Company
Exhibit Volume V
No. 329—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Malcolm Goldstone, Central Office Alarm Com-
No. 330—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Malcolm Goldstone, Owl Protective Company,
General Burglar Alarm Company
No. 331—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Harold W. Gray, American Burglar Alarm Co.
(Pacific Extinguisher Co.)...................
No. 333—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Sarah E. Jackson, Denver Burglar Alarm Com-
pany
No. 334—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Edward J. Lavino, Sentinel Alarm Corporation
No. 336—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Thomas M. Lewin, Automatic Alarm Corpora-
tion
No. 337—Excerpts of deposition ‘testimony of
Gerald J. Linder, American Fire Dispatch, Inc.
No. 338—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Thomas L. Lugen, Fidelity Electronic Protective
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exxisits—Continued Original Print
No. 339—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
James H. McDowell, Central Station Signals,
p RE eC e MES pre te re CN ee 4280 2897
No. 340—Excerpts of deposition testimony of :
Kenneth S. MecFarlan, Jr., Republic Alarm
CORNING 8 600 oan sae ee a eS 4341 2919
No. 341—Exeerpts of deposition testimony of
Peter J. Neumann, Albany Protective Service.. 4389 2933
No. 342—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Ephraim B. Oberlander, Protection Alarms, Inc. 4414 2943
No. 343—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Arthur T. Orner, Morse Signal Devices, Inc... 4461 2961
No. 345—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Shelton Phillips, Potter Electric Signal Com-
pomp 00 Clee i ics Foes aK ied 4501 2974
No. 346—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Donald D. Pillsbury, National Bureau of
Casualty Underwriters...................... 4527 2980
No. 347—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Henry J. Poile, Kedzie-Kane Alarm Co....... 4558 3604
No. 348—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Charles C. Porch, Factory Mutual Rating
Dera ss Sis i es ei es 8 4599 3019
No. 349—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Walter W. Richardson, American Alarm Com-
QO UR F268 5 cd NLRC ea CRT aR ore
No. 351—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
James E. Rose, Michigan Still Alarm Co......
No. 352—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
George W. Saunders, Underwriters Laboratories 4730 3069
No. 355—-Excerpts of deposition testimony of
George A. Smith, Smith Detective Agency &
Nightwatch Service......................5.. 4755 3079
No. 356—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Maurice G. Sondock, MeCane-Sondock Detective
IE i SSG AY es BUR OS * Ge
No. 357—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Sidney Stackler, Central Wateh Service.......
No. 358—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Lee C. Underdown, Central Alarm Company.. 4924 3152
No. 359—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Lyle and Joe Underdown, Central Alarm Com-
PON he OE en ew SE Ae oe 4934 3159
No. 360—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Alex Venners, Federal Engineering Compariy,
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
GovERNMENT’s Exuipits—Continued
INDEX
No. 361—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Ira E. Warlick, Reliance Protective, Inc.......
No. 362—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Morris F. Weinstock, Morse Signal Devices of
I HL AA PENTECOST
No. 363—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Samuel G. Wight, Central Alarm Company,
BF RRE RA re ye AUT UTR ay
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS
A—Schedule of Defendant alarm companies pro-
posed objections to plaintiff’s documents—For
MIME a Sec dca blr ievsceckecdeucey
B—Defendant Grinnell objections to Government
documents—For identification................
E-1—Minimum basic service charges effective Jan-
MN es See aie a Whe Races ss a des ewe
E-2—Minimum basic advance service ae
effective April 1, 1962.. ie
F—Form 701 dated August CeO Se
_G—Form 400 dated February 1963...
H-1—Summary in tabular form of contents. of
Exhibit H—Vocational Listing of Subscribers
Exhibit Volume VI
I—Letter from L. J. O’Brien to C. L. Chafee,
dated September 12, 1955 re: Procter & Gamble
Company, Cincinnati, Ohio..................
F—68-80—Twelve tabulated exhibits and one list
of book cities dated October 1, 1962 admitted at
completion of testimony of Edward Gaston ...
J—Summary statement of local alarm accounts in
five cities, based on Form 400................
K—List of city of Everett, Massachusetts master
L—List of city of Lynn, Massachusetts Police
Department connections, (acting Chief George
W. Donnelly), dated June 16, 1964..........
M—List of Everett, Massachusetts Police Station
connections (Bradford V. Elliott, Chief of
Police), dated June 16, 1964................
N—List of master boxes and heat detection con-
nections, Braintree, Massachusetts, Fire Depart-
ment Headquarters. ........................
O—List of Braintree, Massachusetts, Police De-
partment connections.......................
Original
4984
5004
5077
3242
3632
3633
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpants’ Exnisirs—Continued
P—List of auxiliary connections in the Fire De-
partment, Lynn City, Massachusetts..........
Q—List of Weymouth Fire Department direct
connected and auxiliary alarm connections... .
R—List of Brockton Municipal connections, dated
December 81, 1068. ...........0cc cscs tee
S—List of Boston Municipal connections, dated
Sana Ti DOO |. i: das i ode geen.
T—List of Salem Municipal connections, dated
Soamasd GTA | ik. 8 SOAs cea aces
U—List of U.S. Government contracts (not se-
curity classified), December 31, 1963.........
V—Area list of Government installations, Conti-
nental United States, January 1, 1964........
W(a)—List of ADT central station SS&WF sub-
seribers in Natick, Needham and Newton, Massa-
enete oR R OR Rea ee Widde sles
, tective signalling service....................
Z-3—ADT contract form for central station bur-
glary and holdup protestion service..........
Z-4—ADT contract form for direct connected ser-
WO gods GeO cases . dake TRE owes
Z-5—ADT contract form for local alarm service. .
K-1—ADT contract form for local alarm service
(customer owned system)...................
L-1—List of representative installations made by
ADT using systems and equipment made by
CNN si a at ORR i eS
M-1—List of representative systems installed by
others, and sold outright to subscriber, where
ADT was called in to restore service, and/or to
provide a central station connection..........
U-1—Letter from Stanley N. Barnes, Assistant
Attorney General, Antitrust Division to Frank
A. Fritz, dated July 14, 1955................
V-1—Statement of (ADT) Company’s Revenues,
gross and net balance sheet assets and indicated
ratios, 1950. to 1063... ......... cece ee eee
W-1—Ratio of net earnings to gross assets, net
assets and net worth (ADT), 1947 to 1963....
X-1—Commercial Circular No. 197, supplement
No. 21, dated July 25, 1960, from L. J. O’Brien
regarding outright sales prices marked “Confi-
CP oF Bis CREB Sea
Original
5561
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpants’ Exnipits—Continued
Y-1—List of offices showing annual and advance
service charges secured in excess of minimum
basie rates, 1957 to 1962....................
Z-1—Letter from L. J. O’Brien to J. A. Mae-
Donald, dated August 16, 1960 re Pricing Policy
Memorandum from ADT Special Representa-
tive J. R. Norris to ADT Commercial Superin-
tendent C. L. Chafee, captioned National Can
Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, dated July 23, 1954
(copy) (omitted in printing)................
LL—Price Waterhouse & Company letter dated
May 27, 1964 to The Board of Directors of ADT
with Appendices A, B&C..................
MM(1-20)—Table of detailed financial data on a
city-to-city basis regarding divestiture........
NN—Statement of revenue and expenses—1963,
New Orleans central station (ADT)..........
OO—Statement of revenue and expenses—1963,
Richmond central station (ADT)............
PP—Summary of ADT deficit offices in 1963. ...
QQ—Analysis of advance service charges, city by
Gy; SO BAT Es
RR—List of advance service charges amortized on
a city-to-city basis. Detail of Reply to Govern-
ment Interrogatory No. 17..................
SS—Memorandum of J. A. MacDonald dated June
17, 1952 regarding discussions with Grinnell
Corporation on June 16, 1952...............
UU—ADT Board of Directors minutes of June
11, 1952 (exeerpts).....................4...
VV—Excerpts of ADT Board of Directors min-
wees for Jails 0, 1008: 2. ei ei.
WW-—Arthur D. Little, Ine. report on U.S. Mar-
ket for electric protection services, 1961 to 1962
WW-1—Biographical summaries of Messrs. Gott-
lieb, Frankel & Peters......................
Exhibit Volume VII
XX—Interview guide used in conjunction with
Arthur D. Little, Inc. survey................
YY—Two Sanborn maps of Dubuque, Iowa... .
ZZ—Interviewer’s materials relating to survey of
of Dubuque, Iowa—Anudit & Surveys, Inc.,
Forms 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Job #1232...........
AB—Q4 by Q23, amount of square feet oecupied—
this tabulation is related to Exhibit ZZ. Job
EE ce Un ccle Rie «Rie eens weed Te ba
5809
5813
5815
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Devenpants’ Exxisits—Continued
AC—Q4 by Q24, number of employees—this tabu-
lation is related to Exhibit ZZ. Job #1232...
AD—Q4 by type of business establishment, types
of establisbments—this tabulation is related to
Exhibit ZZ. Job #12382....................
AE—Letters from L. J. O’Brien to District Sales
Managers, dated April 4, 1956; December 2,
1957; August 7, 1959; August 29, 1960; Novem-
ber 23, 1960; re Form 701..................
AF—General Services Administration correspond-
ence from September 20, 1962 to January 2,
C-1—C-5—Defendant Alarm Companies objec-
tions to plaintiff’s designations of deposition
COMED 55080 oie CAEP
DgvenpDaNnt GRINNELL CORPORATION’S EXHIBITS
J-2—1950 Annual Report of the Grinnell Corpo-
ee eee retains Pe ra Peer or
J-5—1953 Annual Report of the Grinnell Corpo-
WE COV TSR l eT AERC can now kta
CO BO i RIN LA aS Oc eae
outs Th, BONE 8 02 EBA SS
J-43—Agreement dated February 28, 1949 be-
tween Grinnell Corp. end Marine Midland Trust
Ce. OF ae TO RE EES...
J-44—Minutes of the Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Grinnell Corp., March 23,
TOP CONNOR) SS i Pee"
J-45-—Letter from W. G. Hampton, Assistant Vice
President, New York Telephone Co. to J. D.
Fleming, President Grinnell Corp., dated Feb-
CE Gy PO eos ea NeS as ea Lao
Income statements of Holmes Electric Protee-
tive Company for the years 1921-1949........
J-47—Agreement dated April 14, 1950 between
New York Telephone Co. and Grinnell Corp...
J-48—Closing Memorandum (undated) ........
J-49—Letter from W. J. Klickhauf, Apple-Cole
Co., to J. D. Fleming, dated May 4, 1953 _..
J-50—Agreement dated June 16, 1953 between
Western Union Telegraph Co. and Grinnell
Corp. with Exhibits A-E..............
J-51—Loan Agreement, dated July 27, 1953 be-
tween Grinnell Corp. and the Equitable Life
Assurance Society (excerpts)................
6001
6002
4110
4111
4113
4114
4117
4120
4158
4163
4164
4199
xxxii INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
DEFENDANT GRINNELL CorPoRATION’S ExHisrts—Con-
tinued Original
J-52—Letter from rr ee & N. Barnes, Assistant
Attorney General to J. D. Fleming, dated June
J-53-—Letter from Roger T. Clapp to W. D. Gail-
lard, Jr., Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley,
dated July 2, 1953
J-54—Letter from Roger T. Clapp to M. J.
Bloomer, Jr., Wickes, Riddell, Bloomer, Jacobi
& McGuire, dated July 2, 1953
J-55--Letter from Stanley N. Barnes, Assistant
Attorney General to Frank A. Fritz, dated July
J-5f—Letter from Frank A. Fritz to Ephraim
Jacobs, Department of Justice, Antitrust Divi-
sion, dated July 13, 1953
J-59—Memo dated July 24, 1950 from Roger T.
Clapp to Department Managers, Fire Protection
Division
J-60—Memo dated June 10, 1963 from Roger T.
Clapp to Department Managers, Fire Protection
Division
J-62—Memo dated February 20, 1954 from O. L.
Swats, Manager, Fire Protection Division to
Department Managers, Contracting Engineers,
J-65—Memo dated April 21, 1950 from H. C.
Ward to All Holmes Employees ........... 6066 4216
J-66—Letter from J. A. MacDonald to Roger T.
Clapp dated June 24,1953.................. 6068 4218
J-69—Memorandum of Material for Discussion
with Messrs. Gaston and MacDonald on June 16 6070 4219
J-70—Letter from Bleakley, Platt, et al. to the
Equitable Life Assurance Society, dated July
BN hen A ae Shes IRS 6076 4226
J-74—Minutes of a special meeting of the Board
of Directors of the Grinnell Corporation dated
pe ERE er eee ee ee 6077 4227
J-75—Statement showing “1928-1937 Earnings
Data”—Grinnell Corporation................ 6079 4229
J-75(1)—General Fire Extinguisher Co.—Report
of the Treasurer To The Board of Directors for
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 1928 ae
CN ak. RE Ota EONS hs 6080 4230
J-75(2)—Ended December 31, 1929 (excerpts). 6087 4238
J-75(3)—Ended December 31, 1930 (excerpts). 6094 4246
J-75(4)—Ended December 31, 1931 (excerpts).. 6101 4254
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
DEFENDANT GRINNELL CorPoRATION’sS Exuisits—Con-
tinued
J-75(5)—Ended Deeember 31, 1932 (excerpts) . .
J-75(6)—-Ended December 31, 1933 (excerpts) . .
J-75(7)—Ended December 31, 1934 (excerpts). .
J-75(8)-——Ended December 31, 1935 (excerpts). .
J-75(9)—Ended December 31, 1936 (excerpts). .
J-75(10)—Ended December 31, 1937 (excerpts) .
J-76—Plaintiff’s Answers to Certain Interroga-
tories of Alarm Company Defendants........
Appendix A—Letter from Stanley N. Barnes,
Assistant Attorney General to Frank A. Fritz,
dated July 23, 1953 (copy) (omitted in print-
EEE Ue Laer yn ta ora © aime Pans Be ge) gre
Appendix B—Letter from Stanley N. Barnes,
Assistant Attorney General to J. D. Fleming,
dated June 29, 1953 (copy) (omitted in print-
DOR) cininidin dv shdes Pid eweNeehe + ISIC Sab eee
Appendix C—Letter from Frank A. Fritz to
Ephraim Jacobs, Department of Justice, Anti-
trust Division, dated July 13, 1953 (copy)
(omitted in printing).......................
J-77—Balance sheet and income statements of
AFA as of June 30, 1948..................
Derenpant ADT’s Exursirs
A9—Memo dated December 15, 1952 from J. L.
Hardesty to H. R. Eakin, Plant Superintendent,
captioned Competition—W ashi m, D.C.....
—Memo dated December 22, 1952 from J. B.
Bodley to A. E. Smith captioned “Federal En-
A13—Memo dated September 29, 1953 from A. E.
Smith to J. A. MacDonald captioned Westches-
ter County
—Memo dated September 14, 1951 from W. J.
Doyle, Commercial Superintendent, to A. E.
Smith, captioned Modified Central Station Bur-
A31—Letter dated March 23, 1959 from Jamie
Bray, Alarm Signal Company of Texas to
ae Be CI shi es eo ih i 8 aS
A36—Handwritten letter dated June 2, 1962 from
T. E. Smith to Mr. Haberman captioned Com-
petition, San Antonio, Texas—Texas Industrial
6201
4318
4318
4331
XXxiv INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisirs—Continued Original
A37—Letter dated October 18, 1955 from J. K.
Seott to A. S. Cook, Manager, captioned River-
side Protective Association, Houston 9, Texas. .
A38—Letter dated October 1, 1959 from R. F.
Ethridge to R. T. Warner, captioned The
Polaroid Company, Dallas, Texas
A39—Letter dated June 22, 1959 from 8S. W.
Christian to J. B. Rustic, captioned Competi-
A40—Letter dated March 15, 1960 from J. D.
Patton to L. J. O’Brien, captioned Competition
A4i—Letter dated December 11, 1956 from C. A.
Southard to J. K. Scott, captioned Scobey Fire-
proof Storage Company, San Antonio, Texas. .
A47—Memo dated November 2, 1959 from J. B.
Bodley to E. J. Heisley, captioned Competitive
A49—Memo dated November 20, 1962 from Jake
Kowalyk to W. J. Robinson, captioned Compe-
tition—Pittsburgh
A51—Memo dated March 12, 1956 from W. J.
Dahl to L. J. O’Brien captioned Boeing Air-
plane Company, Seattle, Washington, Conver-
A52—Letter dated March 14, 1956 from T. I.
Young to W. J. Dahl, re: Boeing Airplane
Company, Seattle, Washington, Conversion. .. .
A53—Memo dated January 30, 1956 from J. J.
Stephens to J. A. MacDonald, captioned Direct
Connected Services, Competition and Compen-
sation
A54—Memo dated February 15, 1956 from R. M.
Bugbee to A. W. Sullivan, captioned Gamewell
A55—Memo dated October 10, 1955 from A. W.
Sullivan to L. J. O’Brien, captioned Competi-
A57—Memo dated July 30, 1955 from R. V.
Haight to H. B. Schultz
A6i—Letter dated January 4, 1954 from E. J.
Heisly to A. E. Smith, re: Wurzburg Bros.,
Memphis, Tenn. (Factory Mutuals) __. 6232
A62—Memo dated September 24, 1953 from J.
Heath, Jr., to E. B. White, re Les Angeles and
Salt Lake ‘Railways, Los Angeles 23, California 6233
INDEX xxxXV
Record from the United States Distriet Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisrtrs—Continued Original Print
A63—Memo dated March 20, 1953 from W. B.
O’Hara to D. E. Kloster, re: Erie Resistor
Cam, Male, Bae). Fs tetas os GES. 6234 435%
A64—Memo dated February 12, 1953 trom O. T.
Blank to F, J. Concannon, re: Benjamin Moore
Co., Denver, Colorado...................... 6235 4356
A66—Memo dated March 6, 1952 from E. A.
Rogers, Jr. to A. S. Cook, re: Competition,
Wild & Stevens, Inc., Needham Street, Newton-
Ville; ee Se STS BASRA aia 6236 4357
A67—Memo dated October 2, 1952 from N. Slavin
to A. 8S. Cook, re: Hotels Statler Company,
Hartford, Connecticut....................... 6237 4359
A68—Memo dated April 7, 1952 from D. R. Hall
to A. 8. Cook, re: Ford Motor Company,
Natick, Mass.—Compulsory Tour Service..... 6238 4359
A70—Memo dated January 18, 1952 from D. R.
Hall to W. R. Boos, re: Ford Motor Company,
Edgewater, New Jersey...................... 6239 4361
A71—Memo dated September 5, 1951 from E. J.
Heisley to A. E. Smith, re: Union Bag and
Paper Company, Savannah, Georgia......... 6240 4362
A77—Memo dated August 11, 1955 from J. B.
Bodley to L. J. O’Brien captioned Competi-
tion—Richmond, Virginia................... 6241 4363
—Memo dated August 8, 1955 from R. O. Beck-
ham to J. B. Bodley entitled Competition—
Wisma Ve eee A 6242 4364
A78—Memo dated June 1, 1953 from T. J. Yocom
to E. B. White entitled Competition Report... 6244 4365
A79—Memo dated July 1, 1959 from Ray Brech-
bill to Lyle Straus entitled Competition—Fort
WN ASS PRETO i 6246 4366
A82—Memo dated March 18, 1955 from W. J.
Doyle to J. A. Webb, re: The Jamison Plastic —
Corporation, North Bellmore, Long Island, N.Y. 6245 4367
A84—Memo dated October 10, 1952 from G. J.
Simon to John Hannon entitled Beth Israel
Hospital, New York City.................. 6247 4368
A85—Memo dated December 9, 1952 from W. J.
Doyle to C. S. Hammergren re: Beth Israel
Hospital, New York, N.Y. pe 6248 4369
A86—Memo dated April 8, 1957 from. Ww. R. ‘Boos
to W. J. Doyle re: Duro-Test Corp., Secaucus,
ANNES Fe euy sac e cys Co LUeCR Ree y ces 6249 4370
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisirs—Continued
A89—Memo dated July 29, 1958 from C. H. San-
ders to W. J. Doyle re: Globe Products Co.,
Inc., Webro Road, Clifton, New Jersey.......
A95—Memo dated August 6, 1951 from A. E.
Smith to John Hannon captioned Auxiliary
Fire Alarm Service, Trenton, New Jersey... .
A98—Memo dated January 5, 1952 from M. E.
Hubert to W. W. Dooley, captioned First Na-
tional Bank, Omaha, Nebraska..............
B8—Memo dated March 21, 1961 from A. S. Jacks
to L. J. O’Brien capticued Competition, Erie,
Pennsylvania ..... le SUEAGH Coe voneak ad ce
B9—Memo dated November 21, 1960 from J. J.
Caffrey to L. J. (* Srien captioned Competitive
BMS © G5 Sib AAG. Fe tea te ao
Bli—Memo dated May 19, 1959 from R. J. Del-
linger to A. 8S. Jacks re: Gamewell Competi-
tion—Erie, Pennsylvania....................
B12—Memo dated March 7, 1959 from R. J. Del-
linger to A. S. Jacks re: Gamewell Company. .
B13—Memo dated May 17, 1959 from R. M. Bug-
bee to A. S. Jacks re: Gamewell Competition—
Erie, Pennsylvania ...... Gi POCE oP CRN
B17—Memo dated May 5, 1958 from F. T. Turner
_to J. B. Rustic captioned “Auxiliary Fire Alarm
Systems—City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania”. . .
B18—Memo dated April 11, 1958 from R. T. War-
ner to L. J. O’Brien captioned “Olin Mathieson
Chemical Corp., New Haven, Conn.”..........
B19—Memo dated March 28, 1958 from W. J.
Dahl to A. W. Sullivan captioned Competi-
tion—Fire Alarm Service, City of Portland,
Oregon, Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems con-
nected to Municipal Cireuits................
B20—Memo dated March 25, 1958 from H. E.
Peters to A. 8. Jacks captioned Competition. .
B21—Memo dated October 15, 1957 from “District
Sales Manager” (RTW) to L. J. O’Brien, cap-
tioned Insurance Relations—FIA and FM....
B24—Memo dated June 7, 1956 from G. B. Fos-
mire to C. L. Chafee, captioned Competition—
SS MRS Si ei a cos hey AP ny oa a5
B30—Memo dated September 24, 1954 from D. M.
Gates te C. I. Chafee... soe). coe.
Original
6250
6252
6264
6266
6269
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—C ntinued
Derenpant ADT’s Exassits—Continued
B33—Memo dated September 15, 1954 from J. A.
MacDonald to A. W. Sullivan entitled Notifier
Mfgs.
B34—Memo dated September 10, 1954 from L. J.
O’Brien to J. A. MacDonald re Competition—
Notifier Alarm Co.—Spurling Automatie Fire
B38—Memo dated August 30, 1954 from R. L.
Hopf to C. L. Chafee re Competition—Spurling
O Wetiller i... obits ASAE
B40—Memo dated June 8, 1954 from Oper. Supt.
(DHB) to J. B. Rustic, re Competition—Lin-
then; ON 5.6. SOB RE Ca AES
B92—Memo dated September 18, 1952 from R. M.
Bugbee to A. E. Smith, re Atmo Competition—
B94—Letter from “Koos Bros.” signed by George
O. Klemp to B. W. Fox, Anchor Motor Freight-
New York Corp., Linden, New Jersey, dated
Hemp BE, NOG iio i ees
B95—Memo dated September 24, 1952 from A. F.
Clunan to W. J. Doyle, re Competition—Atmo,
Linden Investment Co., Linden, New Jersey...
Cl—Memo dated May 14, 1951 from R. M. Bug-
bee to A. S. Cook re Atmo Competition, New
Haven, Connecticut.............0..00-24.4--
C3—Memo dated July 22, 1957 from J. B. Bodley
to O. E. Betscher, captioned M. H. Connell As-
sociates, Miami, Florida.....................
C4—Memo dated July 27, 1962 from C. C. Ras-
mussen, Jr. to W. J. Robinson, re “United
States v. Grinnell Corp. et al.”..............
C8—Memo dated July 11, 1952 from R. M. Pinio
to B. H. Sofge re Ace Burglar Alarm Company,
Hartford, Connecticut ......................
C10—Memo dated July 7, 1952 from K. E. Berrett
to R. M. Pineo, re Ace Burglar Alarm Com-
pany, Hartford, Connecticut.................
C13—Memo dated July 1, 1960 from D. H. Bar-
nett to L. J. O’Brien re “Proposed Councilmen’s
Bill, Denver, Colorado”.....................
C14—Memo dated November 29, 1954 from “Vice
President” to L. J. O’Brien re Denver Ordinance
C15—Copy of Ordinance allowing Denver Banks
to install direct connect alarms, Series of 1954
Original
6278
6293
6296
6298
E
.
68 8 € 2 8 8
XXXViii INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisits—Continued
C21—Memo dated December 18, 1952 from W. K.
Francis to E. B. White re Competition—Tele-
Fire of California, Pasadena, California......
C22—Memo dated April 17, 1953 from J. Heath,
Jr. to E. B. White re competition—Fullerton
Mutual Orange Ass’n., Inc., Fullerton, Cali-
SEARS RR Gp ie GR oe ae eae
C26—Memo dated April 11, 1958 from W. K.
Francis to L. J. O’Brien, entitled Competition—
Sacramento, California......................
C31—Memo dated August 28, 1962 from W. J.
Kupper to Ray Brechbill, re District #13—
Sales Integrity and Competition.............
C32—Memo dated June 16, 1954 from W. K.
Francis to E. B. White re Sears, Roebuck &
Company, Tucson, Arizona..................
C33—Memo dated April 29, 1957 from J. A. Mac-
Donald to J. B. Rustic, re Competition—Spur-
ling Fire Alarm & Indicator Co., Louisville,
REE I ePIC Oe
C34—Memo dated December 21, 1956 from W. J.
O’Meara to E. 0. Betscher, re Yellowstone Dis-
tillery, Ine., Shively, Kentucky..............
C35—Memo dated November 30, 1956 from E. O.
Betscher to L. J. O’Brien, re Competition—
Spurling Fire Alarm & Indicator Company,
Louisville, Kentucky........................
C36—Memo dated September 12, 1956 from J. B.
Bodley to E. O. Betscher, re Competition—
Spurling Fire Alarm & Indicator Company,
Louisville, Kentucky........................
C40—Memo dated September 7, 1955 from A. A.
Balestrino to C. C. Chafee re Competition—
CONE a iio bs ik a Sk kw wees ok.
C41—Memo dated September 10, 1954 from R. L.
Hopf to C. L. Chafee re Competition—Direct
Connect to Fire Tower......................
Agreement between the City of Cincinnati and
Spurling granting direct connect permission,
dated August 6,1954..................
C42—Memo dated September 17, 1953 from E. J.
Heisley to A. W. Sullivan, re Auxiliary & Direct
Connect Competition, Charleston, South Caro-
Ne ee ier ick. Sah Vids ke WEE Ca es E45 9s
C49—Memo dated March 4, 1960 from D. R. Hall
to R. T. Warner, re GMC, New Departure Divi-
sion, Bristol, Connecticut....................
Original
6301
6319
6321
6323
6324
6325
6326
4422
4423
4439
INDEX xxxix
Record from ‘he United States District Court for the Dis-
triet of Rhoae Island—Continued
Devenpant ADT’s Exuisits—Continued Original = Print
C53—Memo dated May 6, 1958 from R. G. Dodd
to L. M. DeSchane re: Mid-West Conveyor
Company, Inc., Kansas City, Kans........... 6329 4449
C55—Memo dated April 4, 1958 from R. G. Dodd
oo Ei BE en iS 6331 4451
C59—Memo dated March 14, 1957 from L. M.
DeSchane to L. J. O’Brien re: Competition—
Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska............... 6332 4452
C60—Memo dated February 11, 1957 from H. E.
Elster to D. H. Barnett re: Competition—
Omaha, Notifier and Dictograph Corp........ 6333 4453
C61—Memo dated January 9, 1957 from Ray
Brechbill to E. Turnbull captioned Competi-
tion—Oshkosh, Wisconsin................... 6336 4456
C66—Memo dated May 27, 1955 from “E.0.B.”
to L. J. O’Brien captioned Banks, Direct Con-
moet Pubes Fi I Cis 6337 4457
C67—Memo dated May 23, 1955 from “District
Operating Superintendent” to J. B. Rustic cap-
tioned B. A. System By Diebold, Inc., Canton,
Che 3058 ER. BG BISEG 6338 4458
—Newspaper clipping describing the ultrasonic
device used by Diebold in local and direct con-
nect vault alarm service..................... 6339 4459
C76—Memo dated August 13, 1954 from R. L.
Beckwith to D. R. Hall..................... 6340 4460
C81—Memo dated November 11, 1953 from L. J.
O’Brien to E. P. Hagan re Competition—Die-
bold, Police Headquarters, Milwaukee, Wiscon-
WN i CEE PIR SE VASE i en Pee 6341 4461
C87—Memo dated January 5, 1952 from M. E.
Hubert to Mr. Dooley, Re: First National Bank,
Gabe, Webeite 6 oR es 6343 4463
C89—Memo dated January 13, 1958 from R. A.
Bewes to R. T. Warner, Re: State of New York
Executive Department, Division of Military and
Naval Affairs, Albany, N.Y.................. 6344 4464
C91—Memo dated June 27, 1962 from W. K.
Francis to Ray Brechbill, Re: Golden Gateway,
Redevelopment Project, San Francisev, Cali-
en i. eS BEE eS TES FRE 6346 4466
C97—Memo dated February 27, 1957 from D. R.
Hall to L. J. O’Brien, Re: Proprietary Systems,
GMC, Chevrolet Division, Ford Motor Company,
Chrysler Motors Corporation................ 6347 4467
INDEX
xl
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisrrs—Continued Original Print
D1—Memo dated August 19, 1952 from Commer-
cial Superintendent to A. E. Smith re Aero
Dll—Memo dated December 7, 1962 from W. A.
Clark to W. C. Marin re The John Shillito Co.,
Cineinnati,
D15—Memo dated August 1, 1961 from F. J.
Coneannon to L. J. O’Brien captioned Julius
Kessler Distilling Company, Calvert Distilling
Company, Jeffersonville, Indiana (Louisville).. 6352 4472
D18-1—Memo dated February 2, 1961 from R. L.
Beckwith to J. K. Swanson re: Jacobsen’s,
Jackson, Michigan......................45.. 6354 4474
D18-2—Memo dated December 26, 1960 from Ray
Brechbill to L. J..O’Brien re: American Hard
Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio.............. 6356 4476
D20—Memo dated August 31, 1960 from L. J.
O’Brien to District Sales Managers and Repre-
sentatives, captioned Competition—Minneapolis-
WINE. 8 ie PORN BA ia ih. 6357 4477
D21—Memo dated January 20, 1959 from M. H.
A. Lindsay to J. A. MacDonald captioned Min-
neapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., Minneapolis,
Minnesota
D22—Memo dated August 16, 1960 from N. R.
Brady to J. B. Bodley re Travelers Broadcast
House, Hartford, Conn...................... 6361 4482
D24—Memo dated July 8, 1960 from J. B. Bodley
to all ADT executive officers, re “Competition—
Minneapolis-Honeywell Company” ........... 6362 4484
D26—Memo dated April 29, 1960 from A. 8.
Jacks to H. B. Schultz re Tri-County Shopping
Center—Shillito’s, Federated Department Store 6364 4486
D27—Memo dated February 3, 1960 from M. H.
A. Lindsay to J. A. MacDonald re Minneapolis
Honeywell Regulator Company and Competi-
Se Os NE kas 6 er eh ins. 6365 4487
D28—Competition Report—November 20, 1962—
West Orange, New Jersey. Job lost to Kidde
ME SEE AGE FERRI: OSE ES 6368 4491
D30—Memo dated August 9, 1961 from M. H. A.
Lindsay to L. J. O’Brien re New CIA Head-
quarters, Washington, D. C, area............ 6369 4493
D32—Memo dated June 13, 1960 from A. Gaston
to L. J. O’Brien re L. Bamberger & Company,
Wem; Bae POM i or A ie. 6370 4494
E
INDEX
Record from the United States Distriet Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exuisitrs—Continued ’ Original
D33—Memo dated January 26, 1960 from F. D.
Shadell to W. J. Doyle re Competition........ 6371
D36—Memo dated January 31, 1956 from J. R.
Hough to E. O. Betscher re Spurling and Kidde,
Minusl, Phebe 6 656 REI 3 6373
D40—Memo dated January 14, 1954 from A. W.
Sullivan to A. E. Smith captioned Atmo Com-
ON Bo A ERIE TS 6375
D41—Memo dated April 2, 1953 from “General
Superintendent” to R. M. Pineo captioned Atmo
Fire Alarm Company, Bridgeport, Conn....:.. 6376
D42—Memo dated May 27, 1953 from R. M. Bug-
bee to A. E. Smith captioned Atmo Competi-
tion—New Haven, Conn..................... 6377
D45—Memo dated October 22, 1952 from W. J.
Doyle to A. E. Smith re: Automatic Fire Alarm
Competition, State of New Jersey............ 6378
D46—Memo dated October 14, 1952 from F. H.
Langille to W. J. Doyle re: Automatic Fire
Alarm Competition, State of New Jersey..... 6380
D51—Memo dated September 2, 1954 from E. J.
Kaiser to King Young re: Competition....... 6381
D59—Memo dated April 8, 1959 from J. T. Lynch
to R. T. Warner re: The New Haven Board and
Carton Co., New Haven, Conn.........:..... 6382
D62—Memo dated March 12, 1957 from L. B.
Straus to L. J. O’Brien re: Marshall Field &
Co., Park Forest, Illinois....... saad fa ee Eee 6384
D75-B—Underwriters’ Laboratories, lea: Acad
ited Central Stations by date of approval since
2 & & & FE
E
B&
are
_
a
D75-E—Manual of Burglary Insurance (excerpts) 6387
Exhibit Volume VIII
D89—Memo dated July 28, 1960 from Ray Brech-
bill to R. J. Highstone re: Highland Park
Police Department, Highland Park, Illinois... 6391 4523
D92—Memo dated January 5, 1960 from R. P.
Lucy to W. K. Francis re: Bemis Bag Co.,
Newark, Califormia....... 2.26.6 6s cheer ee ess 6392 4524
D93—Memo dated October 5, 1954 from L. J.
O’Brien to A. E. Smith re: Direct Connected
Competition—Diebold Company and Gamewell
Go, Chom Cltp, Tommie. cis es eee 6393 4525
xlii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Devenpant ADT’s Exnisits—Continued Original Print
D97—Memo dated June 30, 1955 from C. L.
Chafee to A. E. Smith re: Competition—Cin-
cinnati, Ohio
tions No. 3, dated November 24, 1953 from C. 8.
Hammergren to All ADT Subsidiaries........ 6396 4528
E3—Letter from W. J. Dahl to A. W. Sullivan
dated February 11, 1959, captioned Competi-
tion—Tacoma, Washington RUS MAG see rR 6398 4530
E4—Letter from 8. H. Filipkowski to W. B.
Flammer, dated August 6, 1956, captioned ADT
Competition, Birmingham, Alabama.......... 6400 4532
E6—Memorandum from the Service Superintend-
ent of ADT, Detroit, Michigan to Mr. Swanson,
District Manager, dated October 10, 1960, cap-
tioned Competition—Detroit, Michigan . 6401 4533
E7—Memorandum from W. K. Francis to L. J.
O’Brien, entitled Competition, San Francisco,
CI sii ie Sia ei IN os Ree ve bs 6402 4534
E8—Memorandum from R. T. Warner to L. J.
O’Brien, dated April 6, 1960, captioned Com-
eM i tdi hii iaiald PUL BRE SA ON V5 a 08 6405 4538
E9—Memorandum from E. J. Heisley to L. J.
O'Brien captioned Competition—Washington,
D. C., dated April 15, 1960................. 6407 4541
E10—Memorandum from A. 8. Jacks to L. J.
O’Brien dated April 25, 1960, captioned Com-
petition—Cleveland District................. 6410 4543
E-13—Letter from C. L. Chafee to L. J. O’Brien,
dated June 7, 1957, captioned Competition—
O’Brien, dated May 13, 1957 captioned Com-
petition—Cleveland, Ohio.................... 6413 4548
E15—Memorandum from E. J. Heisley to L. J.
O’Brien, dated April 17, 1957, captioned Com-
petition Radar-Eye......................... 6414 4549
E16—Memorandum from R. T. Warner to L. J.
O’Brien, dated March 8, 1957, captioned Com-
petition—Radar-Eye ..................... 6415 4550
E18—Memorandum from E. J. Heisley to L. J.
O’Brien, dated March 6, 1957, captioned Com-
petition—Radar-Eye ..... 6416 46551
E19—Photostatic copy of an advertisement for
the Radar-Eye Protection System as published
in the Buffalo Carrier Express Newspaper,
I Bs Hr oo 5.8 hic coe Sek. vin vee ee res 6417 4553
INDEX xliii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant ADT’s Exxisits—Continued Original Print
E22—Memorandum from A. L. Kauffman to W.
W. Dooley, dated August 12, 1954, captioned
Competition—Denver, Colo................... 6418 4555
E28—Memorandum from W. E. Mauroschadt to
Mr. John Stephens, dated ‘Angust 30, 1955. . 6421 4558
E48—Memorandum from Lynne Stora to E. B.
White, dated August 9, 1954, captioned Conti-
nental Can Company, Sacramento, California.. 6422 4559
E52—Letter from the President of ADT to the
President of Holmes Electrie Protective Com-
pany, dated March 27, 1947................. 6424 4561
E53—Letter from H. C. Ward, President, Holmes
Electric Protective Company to E. A. Ward,
President, ADT, dated March 26, 1947........ 6425 4561
E55—Memorandum from E. Turnbull to L. J.
O’Brien, dated November 27, 1956, eaptioned
“Certificate—Holdup Alarm, Minneapolis Dis-
os ci iniinn hiceBiaiedn teed tees 6426 4562
E56—Memorandum from M. H. A. Lindsay to
J. A. MacDonald, dated January 20, 1959, cap-
tioned Southdale Shopping Center, Minneapolis,
pe Pen ame ae het a ee 6427 4563
E57—Memorandum from L. H. Pryor to E. Turn-
bull, dated June 20, 1956, captioned Electro-
Watchman, BOR. inks cho dhe emavveen 6430 4566
E58—Memorandum from L. H. Pryor to E. Turn-
bull, dated May 29, 1956, captioned Electro-
Watchman, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota......... 6432 4569
E60—Memorandum from D. R. Hall to L. J.
O’Brien, dated September 2, 1958, captioned
McConnell Kerr Company, Detroit, Michigan.. 6434 4571
E61—Contract competition report form 701 in-
volving a prospect in Grand Rapids, Michigan 6435 4573
E69—Memorandum from R. T. Warner to L. J.
O’Brien, dated April 12, 1957, captioned Com-
petition—The Federal Burglar Alarm Company,
Boston, Massachusetts........ .............. 6436. 4575
E70—Memorandum from R. T. Warner to L. J.
O’Brien, dated January 8, 1958.............. 6437 4575
xliv INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derexpant ADT’s Exuisirs—Continued Original Print
E71—-Memorandum from R. T. Warner to L. J.
O’Brien, dated September 12, 1956, captioned
MS Wes oo ce 6438 4577
E72—Memorandum from N. R. Brady to R. T.
Warner, dated July 25, 1956................ 6439 4578
E82—Memorandum from E. J. Pueci to W. Hable,
dated January 18, 1963, captioned Legislation—
Laws and Ordinances Passed by City Councils
and State Legislatures in the Minneapolis Dis-
trict—Davenport—Moline .................. 6440 4579
—Attachments—Newspaper clippings......... 6441 4579
E84—Memorandum from E. Turnbull to L. J.
O’Brien, dated July 27, 1960, captioned Com-
petition—Cedar Rapids, Iowa................ 6445 4581
E86—Memorandum from D. R. Hall to L. J.
O’Brien, dated September 2, 1958, captioned
The Columbia-Western Corporation, South
empl: Wn as 5 as 5 A ERGY: 6447 4583
E89-1—Letter from C. A. Wiborg, Lumbermen’s
Mutual Casualty Company to the Holmes Elec-
trie Protective Company, dated January 30,
1956, captioned Stewart Warner, Inc......... 6448 4584
E-89-2—Letter from E. J. Heisley to A. E. Smith,
dated December 7, 1954, captioned Police De-
partment Competition, Atlanta, Georgia...... 6449 4585
F16—Memorandum from the Secretary of ADT
to J. A. MacDonald, dated June 24, 1963, cap-
tioned The Citizens & Southern National Bank,
PR DO 6B EO EES 6451 4589
F20—Memorandum from W. J. Dahl to Ray
Brechbill, dated March 5, 1964, captioned Public
Relations, Fire Department, Salt Lake City,
We Fk ee re ay Fee CA RT SEX . 6458 4597
F42—Memorandum from J. J. Hayden to J. K.
Scott, dated September 23, 1963, captioned
Southern Burglar Alarm Co., Atlanta, Georgia 6463 4603
F43—Memorandum from P. K. Labadie to W. C.
Martin, dated April 23, 1964, captioned Com-
Pee Rees ha Bib ene se he ie 6464 4604
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpant Hoimes Evecrric Prorecrive Compan y’s
EXHIBITS
H4—Pamphlet of the Autocall-Howe Plant Pro-
tection Systems ................ 0.002 e cess
H5—Letter from C. K. Empringham to Howard
Stores, Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y., dated August 31,
BOE a ES Banister pS
H11—Report by J. G. Healey, Superintendent of
Shops and Supplies, on the Local Alarm Con-
ference, held November 4, 1960 in the Presi-
dent’s Office, dated November 4, 1960 (excerpts)
H16—Leaflet called “Protective Bulletin” issued
hy the Insurance and Protective Department,
American Bankers Association, for March, 1960
H18-1—cLetter from H. C. Ward to P. R. Webb
dated April 16, 1952........................
H18-2—Memorandum from V. Wierman, Diebold,
Kno. Ant: G2OGB oe ce es scapes.
H-23—Competition report of Holmes, dated June
9, 1961, Pittsburgh, Pa. for the protection ac-
count of the Keystone Iron & Metal Company
H-26—Holmes Business Form No. 640 states that
Holmes was bidding against a local alarm com-
pany for the protection account of Citra Trad-
her ai iis 6a a Shek Kadinncec ey nis
H.30-1-—Competition Report of the Holmes Elec-
trie Protective Company, dated January 3, 1963
in Philadelphia for the protection account of
the Strait Advertising Company, Incorporated
H30-2—Letter from T. L. Weber to Bruce D.
Crockett, dated August 7, 1962, captioned Com-
| ee eer ee ee re ree
Derenpants’ Exursits (Depositions)
W2a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Joseph
E. Cunningham, A. P. F. Company. .
W4a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of M. I.
Brod, Accurate Burglar Alarm Service. .....
W5a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Gerson
Zimmerman, Ace of Spades Burglar Alarm
REE ee a POS SE SR Sn? SoG ee ae
—Exhibits and handwritten correctiors.......
W6a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Thomas
J. Smith, Alarm Engineering Company, Inc... .
ro.
6491
6523
—Exhibits A thra E...................... 6660xxx
W7a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of John
W. Callaghan, Alarm Systems, Inc......... * 6660cece
W8a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Joseph
Siegel, Alert Alarm Company................
4619
4630
4633
xlvi INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Derenpants’ Exuisits (Depositions)—Continued Original Print
W29a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of George
J. Kusta, Arrow Electric Protection Company 6713 4807
W10a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Eric
David, Tattle-Tale Alarms................... 6813 4843
Wlla—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Roy
W12a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Frank
W. Houghton, Automatic Alarms............. 6907 4881
—Exhibits 7, 8,13 and 14................... 7006 ©4921
W13a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Eve-
rett A. Westphal, Bay Alarm Company....... 7012 4925
W14a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Mor-
ton Baizer, Bell Burglar Alarms and Eagle Pro-
teatawe “Cem SS A. 7073 = 4951
W16a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Jo-
seph G. Wilson, Central Burglar Alarm Service
and Surety Alarm Company................. 7166 4987
wr EB ATS. FERS 7255 5026
W17a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Ar-
thur A. Schwartz, Certified Burglar Alarm Sys-
W18a—Exeerpts of deposition testimony of Clar-
ence W. Novak, Chicago Mercantile Police
inet BN i Se SE. 7437 = «4115
W19a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of James
H. Coffey, Cirele Alarm Corporation......... 7455a 5122
W2la—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Ken-
neth M. Holmes, Dallas Burglar Alarm Com-
nhs EE DE UP ale oe ee oD Ta kas Dats 7458 5152
W22a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Claude L. Carpenter, Dawn Patrol Burglar
Re Ce i 8 Ee Ae 7490 =. 166
eS Ge Br. ies Fina os 7565 5192
W23a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Grant
Richard Hamilton, Day & Night Burglar Alarm
COE NBs CSE tees - Ode Weds 7570 = 5196
Exhibit Volume IX
W24a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Al-
fred Wayne Jackson, Diebold, Incorporated... 7626 5215
W25a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of R.
Stafford Edwards, Edwards Company. . . F7R2 56255
W26a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Lyle
A. Vadnais, Electro Watchman, Inc.
INDEX xlvii
Record from the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Rhode Island—Continued
Devenpants’ Exuisirs (Depositions)—Continued OFi¢inel Print
W27a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Gerald R. DeLue, Frortier Guard and DeLue,
WR Sis had weds Ho FL a 7845 5308
W28a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Ar-
thur William Fruh, A. W. Fruh & Company... 7°16 5344
W29a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Harry
Gerber, Gerber & Company.................. 7935 6354
W30a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Loys
C. Bridges, Greenville Avenue Patrol......... 7998 5378
W3la—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Mil-
ton Pierce, Guardian Alarm Company........ 8035 5395
W32a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Julian
C. Cohn, Robert Hall Clothes, Inc............ 8097 65418
W33a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Ken-
neth V. McCluskey, Howard Stores Corporation 8113 5423
W34a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of John
S. Nacey, Howe Electrie Company............ 8128 5429
W36a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of John
H. Trout, International Business Machines Cor-
MORNING Sy ccs cs oh c caves Kodss exeean ee ea ions 8219 5459
W37a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Gor-
don Dillard, Magnetic Alarm Inc............. 8244 5469
W38a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Clar-
ence Irvin Baker, Merchants Alarm Service... 8314 5491
W39a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Rus-
sell W. Laxson, Minneapolis Honeywell Regu-
Nabe SN 6 ES SEI ERG mena 8399 5530
W40a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Wil-
liam Baggett, Mossie Burglar Alarm Company
and Mossie Electric Protection Company...... 8438a 5554
W41la—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Oliver
Tyrrell Joy, Notifier Corporation........... 8438ppp 5584
NUE MI 205 Like peers Mca eevee ws 8438} jj33) 5627
W42a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of
Michael Singel, Security Alarm ............. 8440 5631
W43a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Mary 3
B. Nordsiek, Nordsiek Protection Service .... 8474 5647
W44a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Mor-
ris J. Amsrud, Suburban Patrol Service Cor-
NN 6 5.0 Shs teh eae SARA 68 Sv ies . 8491 5652
W45a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Rob-
ert E. Leeper, United States Burglar Alarm
Company, Incorporated..................... 8501 5656
W46a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Victor
R. Zahn, Victor Burglar Alarm Company ... 8569 5684
W47a—Excerpts of deposition testimony of Henry
A. Walters, WECO and Ace Alarm Company... 8648 5722
325
[fol. 462] Ins roe Unrren Srates District Court or THE
District or MassacHUSETTS
[Title omitted]
Civil Action No. 2785
Transcript of Trial—Boston, Mass., June 15, 1964.
APPEARANCES:
Noel E. Story, Esq. and Hugh F. Morrison, Jr., Esq.,
Anti-trust Division, counsel for the plaintiff.
Denis G. McInerney, Esq., Roger T. Clapp, Esq. and
Gerald C. Van Cise, E'sq., counsel for the defendant Grn-
nell Corporation,
Frank A. Fritz, Esq., Frank A. Fritz, Jr., Esq., Matthew
W. Goring, Esq., Robert L. Conkling, Esq. and Averill M.
Williams, Esq., counsel for the defendants American Dis-
trict Telegraph Company, Holmes Electric Protective
Company and Automatic Fire Alarm Company of Dela-
ware.
[fol. 463] CoLLoquy anp Orrer In EVIDENCE oF
GovERNMENY EXHIBITS
1 THrover 307 anv Ossections THERETO
Mr. Story: Shall I proceed, your Honor?
The Court. Yes.
Mr. Story: Your Honor, the Government waives an
opening statement in this matter, but I would request your
Honor to allow me a very short rebuttal in the event that
the defendants make an opening statement.
The Court: All right. No opening will be made until the
defendants begin, in accordance with the usual practice in
this court.
Mr. Story: Very well, your Honor. Well, your Honor, at
this time the Government would like to proceed with the
introduction of its documentary evidence.
The Court: You may proceed.
Mr. Story: Your Honor, I have one suggestion, if it is
agreeable to all parties here, that will save some time, your
326
Honor. As your Honor knows, by order of this Court the
Government filed with the Court designation of the docu-
ments that it intended to use in its case-in-chief back in
February, I think it was February Ist.
In that document, the Government listed documentary
material numbered from 1 to 307. Now it is my intention
here this morning, your Honor, to describe only——
The Court: You need not describe them. They have al-
ready been described.
[fol. 464] Mr. Story: That is what I was going to suggest,
your Honor.
The Court: You may offer them in bulk.
Mr. Story: Very well, your Honor. There is just one
point that I would like to bring out to your Honor. There
are some six documents where the Government introduced
only a portion of the document. Now we have received ob-
jections from the defendants to the admissibility of these
documents. They have not objected so far to the introduc
tion by the Government of only a portion. But I want to
point out that to your Honor, so that in the event, as to
those six documents, the defendants would like to offer any
other portions, this will give them that opportunity.
With that, your Honor, and to be of assistance to all of
us in handling the exhibits in the record, I would suggest
that the Government’s memorandum be given to the Court
Reporter and have him type in the record of this hearing,
just as I have here, the documents which have been, inci-
dentally, your Honor, marked for identification by your
Clerk, in the same numerical order as they appear in my
memorandum.
The Court: There is no reason ror the Court Reporter to
undertake that labor. I will receive that — has it been
marked?
Mr. Story: This has not been marked.
[fol. 465] The Court: I will receive that merely as a mat-
ter for identification. It is not an exhibit. It is a classifica-
tion of exhibits. It is not received as an exhibit. It is, how-
ever. to be given a number, as though it were an exhibit,
but to be marked an exhibit for identification only. What
- is the next number?
The Clerk: 364.
The Court: It is 364 for identification only.
327
(Document entitled Designation of Documents upon
which Plaintiff Will Rely in its Case-in-Chief and a state-
ment of the main issues to which each document primarily
relates, marked Exhibit 364 for Identification.)
The Court: Now you offer the 363 preceding exhibits?
Mr. Story: The Government now offers what have been
marked Government Exhibits 1 through 307 for identifica-
tion into evidence.
The Court: Is there any objection?
Mr. Fritz: I have two matters, your Honor.
Mr. Story: Wait a minute.
The Court: Wait a minute. I thought Mr. Story had con-
cluded.
Mr. Fritz: I am sorry.
[fol. 466] Mr. Story: I am sorry, your Honor. I have fin-
ished.
The Court: Mr. Fritz?
Mr. Fritz: First of all, if your Honor please, I object to
the receipt of these documents in bulk.
The Court: They will not be considered of course in bulk.
But all have been before you, all of them have been ana-
lyzed, and it is a matter of convenience to have them pres-
ented in bulk. I will of course regard them individually.
Mr. Fritz: Yes, I understand that. I wish to make the
point, however, and I want to do it at the outset, that with
such a bulk presentation, we have here a claim by the Gov-
ernment for conspiracy between or among the four defend-
ants, and I represent three of those defendants, and I sup-
pose it is fundamental that no document relating to any
alleged act or episode that may be referred to in any doc-
ument on the part of one can possibly bind any other per-
son until the so-called conspiracy is proved as an inde-
pendent fact.
The Court: I am satisfied from my examination of the
documents that a prima facie case has been made for the
admissibility on the conspiracy theory.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I respectfully urge my reasons, as a
preliminary objection. Secondly, as counsel for the Govern-
ment has said, and as your Honor has noted, we have been
furnished with a list of these documents, and we also have
[fol. 467] furnished the Government with the designation
of the objections that we have to those documents. There
328
are some of course to which we made no objection. Frankly,
I am in a bit of a quandary as to what the situation is with
regard and will be with regard to those objections.
The Court: I am going to rule upon them this morning
or as soon thereafter as you have finished your argument.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I don’t think the document I have here
will fully acquaint your Honor with the detail bases for the
objections.
The Court: You have my permission to speak orally as
long as you like, to the Greek Calends, if you please.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I haven’t any intention, if your Honor
please, of arguing the objections to each of these three
hundred and some odd documents individually, but I have
noted to the Government the nature of our objections to
those to which we do object. I have a statement here set-
ting forth the nature of those objections in very cryptic
form, however. I would be glad to hand those to the Court
as part of the record in this case——
The Court: You may do so.
Mr. Fritz: —as a basis for your Honor’s consideration.
[fol. 468] The Court: You may do so. I have told you I
am ruling as soon as you have finished. Anything you wish
to say by way of elaboration you are free to say. No cloture
will be imposed.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I don’t think I wish to say anything fur-
ther than to simply call your Honor’s attention to the na-
ture of the objections we have to the various documents
listed on this exhibit.
The Court: It is received as Exhibit A for Identification
on the part of the defendants, not for admission but for
identification.
(Schedule of defendant Alarm Companies’ Proposed Ob-
jections marked Defendants’ Exhibit A for Identification.)
Mr. Story: May I proceed, your Honor?
The Court: I don’t know whether somebody else wants
to say something.
Mr. McInerney: If your Honor please, rather than du-
plicate the statements of co-counsel, I would adopt his ob-
jections insofar as they pertain to this defendant, and I
would like to further note, your Honor, one other difference
329
in our position, perhaps not a difference but perhaps not
one brought out and emphasized by co-counsel.
Grinnell not only objects to these documents, or certain
of them, but I have a list here——
{fol. 469] The Court. You may hand that up, if you wish,
and it may be marked Exhibit B for Identification.
(Defendant Grinnell Objections (to Government docu-
ments) marked Defendants Exhibit B for Identification.)
Mr. McInerney. In addition to the grounds stated on that
list, your Honor, your Honor has stated that a prima facie
case has been made out for a conspiracy and, therefore, the
documents of the alleged co-conspirators should be admis-
sible as against all of the defendants. This defendant has
had a controlling interest in the other three defendants
since 1953 and we respectfully submit, your Honor, that
insofar as the documents between these defendants, exclud-
ing those, but just taking the intra-corporate affairs of each
defendant, even though those documents may relate to rela-
tions with the other defendants but did not pass between
the defendants, that is to stay any document that is not
from, to or about Grinnell, since the period of its common
ownership of these subsidiaries, we submit that as of that
time there is no conspiracy recognizable in law with respect
to the intra-corporate affairs of these people. Your Honor,
I am not going to argue at great length.
Mr. Story: Your Honor
[fol.470] The Court: I know the Supreme Court cases. Do
sit down, Mr. Story.
Mr. Story: Your Honor, I had not finished my evidenti-
ary presentation as to——
The Court: Please sit down, Mr. Story.
Mr. McInerney: This is a very substantive point with us,
your Honor.
The Court: I understand that. And it is one which, of
course, you are free to try to get the Supreme Court of the
United States to change its views upon.
Mr. McInerney: All I am saying, your Honor, is that
I do not intend to expound on it at great length at this time.
I simply wanted to note that objection, for the record, and
have your Honor’s ruling on it at the close of the plaintiff’s
case.
The Court: The 307 exhibits, Exhibits 1 through 307 for
330
Identification, inclusive, are admitted in toto, in accordance
with the proffer. All objections are overruled.
(Documents formerly marked Government’s Exhibits 1
through 307 for Identification received in evidence.)
OrFer In Evipence or AppirrionaL GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
Mr. Story: Now, your Honor, the next five exhibits which
have been marked for identification are duly executed stipu-
lations between the parties. I would like now to identify
them on the record.
Government Exhibit for Identification No. 308 is stipula-
{fol. 471] tion No. 1 between the parties, which is a stipula-
tion as to the authenticity of the documents offered into evi-
dence by the plaintiff, that is, Government Exhibits 1
through 307.
The Court: Is there any objection? I hear none. Ad-
mitted.
(Stipulation No. 1 between the parties marked Govern-
ment’s Exhibit 308 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Story: The next document, which has been marked
Government Exhibit 309 for Identification, is designated as
Stipulation No. 2, which is a stipulation as to the volume
of customers across State lines in the United States and
the District of Columbia.
The Court: Mr. Story, if these are all stipulations, there
is no need for you to describe them. You will just run up
a bill with the Court Reporter. How many stipulations are
there?
Mr. Story: There are five.
The Court: Is there any objection to any of them?
Mr. Fritz: No, sir, we have stipulated.
The Court: They are all admitted.
Mr. Fritz: I am assuming that we are talking about the
same ones he is.
[fol. 472] The Court: Obviously if there is a mistake with
respect to that, I will reopen the matter.
Mr. Story: Just for the record, your Honor, the stipula-
tions have been numbered Government Mxhibits 308, 309—
The Court: You are not buying this transcript but the
defendants are. Why charge them for your words?
331
Mr. Story: Well, your Honor, this will only take a few
minutes, and I would like the record to be straight.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Story: Government’s Exhibits 311 and 312.
(Stipulations Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and 5 between the parties
marked Government’s Exhibits 309, 310, 311 and 312, re-
spectively, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Story : Now, your Honor, the next four exhibits which
have been marked for identification are the Government’s
extracts of answers by the defendants to interrogatories
propounded by the Government.
The Court: 313 through what?
Mr. Story: 313, 314, 315 and 316.
The Court: Is there any objection? I hear none. Ad-
{fol. 473] mitted.
(Designation of Answers of ADT, Holmes Electric Pro-
tective Co., Automatic Fire Alarm Co. of Delaware and
Grinnell Corporation to Interrogatories propounded by
Plaintiff, marked Government’s Exhibits 313, 314, 315 and
316, respectively, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Story: Now, your Honor, the next exhibits which
have been marked by your Clerk for Identification are ex-
cerpts from the transcripts of depositions taken in this
matter.
The Court: What are their numbers please? Beginning
with 317?
Mr. Story: 317 through 363.
The Court: These are all extracts from depositions?
Mr. Story: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: And you are offering them in toto. And there
is no objection to them, I assume?
Mr. Story: No, your Honor, there is not.
The Court: No objection?
Mr. Fritz: Well——
Mr. Story: I——
The Court: Just a moment. There appears to be an ob-
' jection by Mr. Fritz.
(fol. 474] Mr. Story: Well, your Honor, I am not offering
all of them into evidence.
The Court: What are you doing?
332
Mr. Story: Some of the extracts, your Honor, I am not
offering into evidence.
The Court: Which ones did you have marked you do not
intend to offer? .
Mr. Story: I can state those in the record right quickly.
The Court: I hope so.
Mr. Story: Government Exhibit 321, which is a deposi-
tion of Benjamin H. Call of the Call Police Signal Corpora-
tion, Chelsea, Massachusetts. The Government does not
plan to offer into evidence this deposition because we found
in the late stages that it would be cumulative.
The Court: I am not ruling on matters not offered. Just
give me the numbers of the ones you are not offering.
Mr. Story: I am not offering Government Exhibit for
Identification 321, 322——
Mr. Fritz: Excuse me. What was that number?
The Court: 321 and 322.
Mr. Story: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fritz: Could you give us the name please?
The Court: Yes, do that. The first one was Call.
[fol. 475] Mr. Story: All right.
The Court: The second one?
Mr. Story: Exhibit 322 for Identification is a deposition
of Henry G. Clark, Providence, Rhode Island.
Mr. Fritz: Who is 321?
The Court: Call.
Mr. Fritz: Thank you.
Mr. Story: Government Exhibit 327 is the deposition of
Joe Forman of the Call Police Signal Corporation, Chelsea,
Massachusetts.
Government Exhibition for Identification 332 is the depo-
sition of Francois Guibert, District Telegraph Company,
Newark, New Jersey.
Government Exhibit for Identification 344 is the deposi-
tion of Ralph C. Peabody, Granite State Alarm Company,
Manchester, New Hampshire.
Government Exhibit for Identification 350 are excerpts
from the deposition of Herman E. Robinson, Protective
Alarm Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Government Exhibit for Identification 353 is the deposi-
tion of Freddie Schnell, Electro-Protective Corporation,
Newark, New Jérsey.
333
Government Exhibit for Identification 354, extracts of the
deposition of Jack Silverman, National Protective Corpora-
tion, Baltimore, Maryland.
[fol.476] The Government is not offering the exhibits I
have just related.
The Court: The Government’s offer is of Exhibits 317
through 320, 323 through 326, 328 through 331, 333 through
343, 345 through 349, 351, 352, 355 through 363. Is there any
objection?
Mr. Fritz: Well, there are two others I would like to make
inquiry about because I think they fall in the same category
of reasons for which the others have been excluded. I may
be in error.
The deposition of Mr. Rosenberg of the Hyde Park
Alarm, which is within 100 miles of this court, may I ask
the Government whether that deposition is to be offered
or not?
Mr. Story: The Government—Mr. Who, sir?
Mr. Fritz: Mr. Rosenberg, Hyde Park Alarm, in this area.
Mr. Story: The Government has not designated any por-
tion of that deposition and at the moment we do not intend
to offer any of it.
Mr. Fritz: Very well. May I also inquire whether or not
the deposition of Harold S. Leich, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
is intended to be offered by the Government?
Mr. Story: It was offered, your Honor, and I intended
to offer it.
[fol.477] The Court: The number please?
Mr. Story: Your Honor, that is Exhibit 355—335, rather.
The Court: 355.
Mr. Story: Well, your Honor——
The Court: Hold on for a moment. I don’t want any-
thing on the record or off the record until I have read this
communication which has just been handed to me.
I have just been handed a communication, received this
morning in the office of the Clerk, from Harold S. Leich,
who, I assume, is the person to whom reference has just
been made in the preceding colloquy. This is addressed to
Neale D. Murphy, Clerk. It is addressed to the United States
District Court, United States Court House and Post Office
Building, Boston, Mass.
334
It reads as follows:
‘‘Dear Mr. Murphy” and it is signed ‘‘Harold 8. Leich.”’
‘Would you please hand the Judge the enclosed let-
ter. The enclosed subpoena was not served on me until
7:30 A.M. June 13, 1964.
‘‘T also contacted at 12:42 A.M. June 14, 1964 it,
Ralph Schulke of the local A.D.T. office so that he could
inform their attorneys.’’
[fol.478] And the enclosed letter is from a Dr. Francis
F. Rosenbaum, 425 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. It is dated June 13, 1963. It is addressed to
this Court and says:
‘‘This is to certify that I have attended Mr. Harold
S. Leich of 8860 No. Tenneyson Dr., Milwaukee, Wis.,
53217, since November 1960. Mr. Leich has extensive
coronary artery disease.
‘*T have been informed that Mr. Leich has been asked
to appear at a trial in Boston on the morning of June
15, 1964. It is my opinion that Mr. Leich should not
appear at a trial without adequate medical preparation
and that the time allotted since his notification is not
sufficient to permit this.’’
Mr. Duffey, in copying this in the record, there are a
number of typographical errors. It is to be copied exactly
as it is, please.
In view of this plausible, at any rate, excuse, do you want
to persist with the offer of exhibit 355 for Identification?
Mr. Story: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: All right. I just did not know whether in
view of the fact it is quite obvious we may have to have
a postponement, if you introduce 355 for indentification,
[fol. 479] you want, yourself, to invite that postponement.
Mr. Story: In just a moment——
The Court: That is all I am asking you. Nothing more.
Think about it.
Mr. Story: Your Honor, the Government will withdraw
its offer.
The Court: All right. That is enough. You don’t have
to tell me why.
Mr. Story: I want to straighten the number out, your
335
Honor. I called it 355. It should be 335. I would like to get
that straightened out on the record.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Story: The Government will withdraw its offer of
this deposition into evidence.
The Court: All right. It is withdrawn. That makes it
333, 334 and 336 through 343.
Mr. Fritz: Mr. Story, have you finished with your offer?
Mr. Story: Yes.
CotLoquy Between Court anp CounsEL For DEFENDANTS
Mr. Fritz: If your Honor please, some time back——
The Court: Excuse me. Before you do proceed, would
Mr. Story or somebody on the United States Government’s
side inform Mr. Leici that the subpoena—no, I guess the
defendants issued the subpoena.
[fol.480] Mr. Fritz: That is correct, yes, sir.
The Court: Will the defendants inform him that the sub-
poena is withdrawn?
Mr. Fritz: Yes.
The Court: With the corisent of the Court it is quashed.
Now you may proceed.
Mr. Fritz: As your Honor will note, and probably has
not had an opportunity to note, counsel for the Govern-
ment and ourselves have cooperated to have printed almost
as a running text the -xcerpts from all of these depositions
that have been offered.
The Court: You would be surprised at how much I have
noted, although in your arguments you have sometimes
assumed that I do not note what is filed.
Mr. Fritz: I really would not assume that, sir. It is just
bulk that I thought——
The Court: You had better make no assumptions as to
the rate or quantity of work that I have done.
Mr. Fritz: I hope your Honor will take my statement
that I meant not the slightest offense or reflection.
The Court: I do regard your stiéiements as both an
offense and a reflection at an earlier stage because they
are based upon the assumption that I gained information
from some other source or other circumstances than by
[fol.481] your demand that I should read these docu-
ments.
Mr. Fritz: May I——
336
The Court: You yourselves put on me the burden of
forming an opinion and I did form one.
Mr. Fritz: May I respectfully say that I had no such
intention in any comment I made to this Court.
The Court: You have sometimes given the Court the
impression that I acquired some idea of this case except
from you and opposing counsel. I have no other idea.
Mr. Fritz: I have purposely never intended to convey
the slightest intimation of that to your Honor nor has it
been in my mind at any time, and if I did so it was certainly
an inadvertence, which I regret very. much.
The Court: You have made it quite plain io the country
at large, or at least to this community, that you regarded
me as having formed an opinion from some other way than
a Judge ought to form an opinion.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I don’t think it becomes me to make
any comment except to say that what I submitted to this
Court I did on the basis of only two matters, two excerpts
of hearings before this Court, one, May the 28th and one,
June the 3rd, and they were presented in full.
The Court: They did not tell the whole story because
over my strong reluctance you insisted that I should hold
[fol. 482] a case in suspense so that you could confer
about a possible settlement and that I could look at the
papers with respect to the matter. You, not I, ercaicu vbe
difficulty. Any Judge would properly resent being drawn
into a situation as a trap and then have the door let loose.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I don’t think it would serve any useful
purpose on my part certainly—your Honor seems to have
strong convictions about that—but let me just close it by
saying that for my part, and I am sure for Mr. McInerney’s
part, we came her suggesting the use of the Handbook
Procedure in the utmost of good faith thinking it would be
of help. Now we may have been mistaken in that but that
was what our motivation was.
The Court: You proceeded to disqualify two Judges and
sought to disqualify the third on the eve of a trial that had
been postponed for nine months.
Mr. Fritz: The disqualification of the two prior Judges
was purely voluntary on their part and had nothing to do
with any of us.
Now with respect to the depositions that have been
offered by the Government may I point out, as I was say-
337
ing to your Honor, and I perhaps used an unfortunate
phrase, that we collaborated to put together the excerpts
from the depositions so that they would present a running
[fol. 483] story with respect to each of the depositions.
However, both we and the Government have noted objec-
tions to certain portions of the depositions that each has
selected. The pages of those objections are not reflected
in the deposition excerpts as filed, and so we have pending
at the moment objections to certain portions of these
depositions which I wish to submit to your Honor for con-
sideration in such fashion and at such time as your Honor
might want them.
The Court: Right now.
Mr. Fritz: Well, sir, the exhibit, as I have it prepared,
sir, includes the depositions that were withdrawn this
morning. I had no way of knowing that they were not
going to be pressed. So may I have just a few minutes to
rearrange this document?
The Court: Surely. Do you want a recess for a few
minutes?
Mr. Fritz: I think so, sir.
The Court: All right. We will take a 10 minutes’ recess.
(Recess. )
The Court: Mr. Fritz, you may proceed.
Mr. Fritz: I am not ready, but may I make this sug-
gestion, so we do not waste time. We have not been able
mechanically to do what I had hoped we could do in this
[fol. 484] short period of time. May I offer——
The Court: You may have as long a recess as you want.
Mr. Fritz: Well, if that is so, then I would appreciate
putting this in an orderly fashion. It may take another
ten minutes or so.
The Court: You may have certainly ten minutes.
Mr. Fritz: Thank you, sir.
The Court: When you are ready, let the Court Officer
know.
Mr. Fritz: I beg your pardon, your Honor?
The Court: When you are ready, let the Court Office know.
Mr. Fritz: Thank you very much.
(Recess. )
338
[fol.485] Mr. Fritz: If the Court please, I offer to the
Clerk to be marked by the Reporter five sections of docn-
ments containing the defendants’ objections to the depo-
sitions which have been offered by the Government this
morning, and these sections are all tied in by reference to
the Government Exhibit numbers on those depositions.
I apologize for the appearance, but it results from the
removal of the sheets relating to those depositions which
the Government has withdrawn.
The Court: Do you want to be heard orally in addition
to your written presentation?
Mr. Fritz: Well, frankly, I think it would be a very time-
consuming problem.
The Court: All right, then don’t. If you will just hand
them to me I will have marked as Exhibit C for Identifica-
tion those documents, of which there are five. They will
be C-1 through C-5 for Identification.
Will you mark them and hand them to me, please?
Mr. McInerney: If your Honor please, on behalf of the
Grinnell Corporation, rather than duplicating the objec-
tions of co-counsel, with your Honor’s permission I would
like to adopt them, and if we may follow that procedure
throughout this trial I think it will save time.
[fol.486] The Court: Yes. It will be understood that un-
less someone states otherwise, every objection through-
out this trial made by any counsel for any defendants ap-
plies. to all the defendants, not only to the particular de-
fendant on whose behalf counsel is objecting. That is a
universal ruling to be applied throughout this case.
Mr. McInerney: Thank you, your Honor.
If I may call your Honor’s attention to just one of these
exhibits, which is Exhibit 351, Government’s Deposition
of James E. Rose taken in Detroit September 26, 1962,
we don’t intend to argue the objections orally to your
Honor, but I would like to call the Court’s attention to the
type of testimony that is being submitted.
Mr. Rose testified to an instance of alleged misconduct
on the part of a Grinnell employee, and I won’t go into
that. I will just give in very brief form from one sentence
the nature of the witness’ knowledge with respect to that
incident.
This is Mr. Rose testifying, page 95, second line:
339
‘*My superintendent, Mr. Gilbert, passed the remark
to me that our installer on the job, Ted Huffer, had
passed a remark to him that during the installation of
us installing our devices, our switch on the O.8S. & Y.
[fol. 487] valves, that the Grinnell representative told
our man——’”’
And then there was an objection, and properly so, I
might say, your Honor. This is quadruple hearsay.
That paragraph gives the sum and substance of the
nature of this witness’ knowledge with respect to anything
concerning the Grinnell Corporation, and our objection to
that testimony on the ground of hearsay runs to all of the
testimony with respect to the Grinnell Corporation on page
93, line 24, through page 98, line 18, Exhibit 351.
Now I won’t argue the other objection, but I just wanted
to call the Court’s attention to that one. Thank you, your
Honor.
Mr. Fritz: May I just add I don’t wish to make oral
argument, but what Mr. McInerney has just read to your
Honor is perhaps extreme but there is a great deal of that
in all of these deposition, and our objections are based on
that as well as on other bases.
RvuuLinG oF THE CouRT
The Court: I should like to make it quite clear that I
have no intention whatsoever of resting my findings, con-
clusions, or judgment upon the type of hearsay illustrated
just now by Mr. McInerney.
As I have already abundantly made clear in an earlier
case, United States v. the United Shoe Machinery Corpo-
ration, I do not regard the hearsay rule in its full vigor
[fol. 488] as entirely applicable to antitrust matters, and
in that respect subsequent decisions in the Supreme Court
of the United States indicate I made no error in that
attitude.
I would not for a moment in any manner take into
account four-stage hearsay or anything like that. These
questions of hearsay are always difficult problems. The
hearsay rule is not, as some people erroneously suppose,
a rule adopted only for jury cases. It does apply to cases
in which a Judge sits alone.
340
However, the original purpose of the hearsay rule was
to preserve the advantages of effective cross-examination.
See Edmund M. Morgan passim.
In antitrust cases central adjudication ought not to be
made on the basis of hearsay. However, certain back-
ground matters and certain minor questions may to some
extent rely upon minor hearsay elements.
With respect to questions of relevance and materiality,
needless to say, an objection is always valid. To determine
whether a particular matter is or is not relevant or mate-
rial requires a total view of all the evidence. It is gen-
erally undesirable save in the plainest case immediately to
rule when a Judge sits alone upon questions of relevancy
and materiality.
When he comes to draft his findings, conclusions, and
[fol. 489] judgment, he is in a much better position to take
a total view of the total picture and to see whether some-
thing which initially appears to be irrelevant or immate-
rial is in fact irrelevant or immaterial.
To be sure, the making of such determination has some
disadvantages for the defendants in that they cannot know
whether something will or will not be excluded.
That kind of risk, however, is relatively minor because
they, like the Judge, will have a better understanding of
whether something is irrelevant or immaterial when they
too look at the total case.
In any event, so far as I am concerned, I am not now
going to exclude anything on the ground that it is irrelevant
or immaterial, nor am I going to exclude anything on the
ground that it is hearsay.
The protection which the defendants will have is that
they may be sure that on any vital matter in the case I
shall not put in a mere summary method my findings, con-
clusions, or judgment but, where appropriate or necessary,
I shall key to particular documents or other exhibits or
pages of the transcripts such support as there may be for
such findings, conclusions, or judgment as I enter.
With regard to the obections made on the ground of lack
of authority, it is sufficient to say that although a statement
which actually lack auihurity is inadmissible, the question
[fol. 490] of its admissibility appears often in an inade-
quate setting if looked at alone. It requires a view of the
341
total situation, and the Judge can best make his determi-
nation when the total picture is before him.
With regard to the objections made on the ground of lack
serving, not much can be gained by either including or
excluding such testimony at this stage.
If the matter is in fact self-serving, it goes to its weight
quite as much as to its admissibility, and an experienced
Judge, having sat for 22 years, generally knows how much
attention to pay to self-serving, biased, or otherwise im-
properly motivated testimony.
The same may be said with respect to objections on the
ground of lack of authority. Objections to the form of the
question are rarely of durable significance.
To be sure, if a question is put in the presence of a
Judge and an objection is made to the form of the question,
a Judge will wpually determine whether or not it is worth-
while to intervene.
Where the objection is merely to the form of the ques-
tion put in the presence of a Notary Public or some other
surrogate for the Judge and the question has been put,
the objection to the form of the question is usually of no
such significance as to require a Judge reviewing the
deposition to exclude the question and answer.
{fol.491] Where the answer is not responsive to the
question and objection is made on that ground, the whole
problem is whether or not the answer is so plainly outside
the bounds of the issues of the case and che nature of the
interrogation that the answer ought to be disregarded.
Here again, a Judge faced with the total record and
engaged in the task of drafting findings, conclusions, and a
judgment, will no doubt be sufficiently sensitive to make a
sensible disposition of the objection but a sensible dis-
position is better made at a terminal point in the case.
[fol. 492] Where the objection is on the ground that the
witness has made a conclusion or that he has indulged in
speculation, this objection, of course, is to be borne in mind
by the judge at the end of the case. It need not result in
a fly-specking immediate examination in open court or by
written opinion at an intermediate stage.
Where statements have been volunteered, the principle
is identical with that where the statement is nonresponsive
or allegedly nonresponsive to a question.
Where objection bas been made on the ground of best
342
evidence or some identical principle or analagous rule, the
evidence is, of course, not barred on that ground but ordi-
narily is not received when better evidence is readily pro-
curable.
No doubt the objection with respect to the best evidence
rule is a thoroughly appropriate objection. In a trial where
the testimony is offered in open court a judge often can,
by a ruling from the bench, adequately deal with the mat-
ter.
Where the testimony allegedly violating the best evidence
rule is also offered before a notary public, the question as
to whether it so clearly is an inferior and undesirable type
of evidence is exactly like the question whether hearsay
avidence ought to be received.
Indeed, the so-called best evidence rule is not as much
of a bar as the hearsay rule. It is no reason for a judge at a
[fol. 493] stage intermediate in the trial to make a ruling
unless it is so clearly a central point that the plaintiff or
offering party might run such a grave risk that the best
evidence rule will be applied against the offering party
without any adequate opportunity on the part of the offer-
ing party to be apprised of the fact and given the oppor-
tunity to present other better evidence available or pro-
curable by the offering party.
Parole evidence objections run not to questions of evi-
dence per se but to questions of substantive law. If par-
ticular items constitute a violation of the parole evidence
rule, no judge adequately informed will rest his findings,
conclusions or judgment upon an item which by substantive
law is properly excluded from his consideration.
Where the witness is alleged not to be competent, the
problem is, of course, a vital one, but competence, again,
like authority is something which requires a total con-
spectus.
Where conversations are objected to on the ground that
they were with a third party and were not binding on the
defendant, the question in a sense is first whether the third
party, even though not named as a defendant, is indeed
a non-named co-conspirator and whether there is independ-
ent evidence of that conspiracy.
[fol.494] Where such independent evidence exists the
third-party, though not named as a conspirator, is one who
343
under general principles of law has a matter of sound
judicial discretion a right to be treated as impliedly author-
ized to make on behalf of his co-conspirators with regard
to a pending conspiracy in connection with a subject of the
conspiracy a declaration binding upon his fellow-conspira-
tors.
Here again a sensible judge awaits a full picture before
he determines whether or not a particular individual third-
party was indeed a co-conspirator whether the conspiracy
was at that time in effect and whether the matter related to
the conspiracy. Were the matter being tried before a jury
it would of course be necessary immediately to rule for the
jury cannot be trusted with such testimony. The judge,
however, must learn of the facts or the alleged facts at the
very time he makes the ruling. No more prejudice inheres
in his postponing the matter than in his determining at
once inasmuch as the very assumption of the total proceed-
ing is that the judge who is to find the facts make the con-
clusions, write the judgment, is the very judge who must
make the ruling.
Where particular items of discovery allegedly antedate
or predate the discovery period allowed by the Court, of
[fol. 495] course such matters are not properly taken into
account unless admissible under some other basis. This
kind of objection, however, obviously relates to a relatively
trivial aspect of the case, and it is unthinkable that this
judge, at any rate, is going to make any findings, conclu-
siors or judgment exclusively based upon something which
predated the matters alleged in the complaint as it may
be finally amended.
_ Where an objection has been made to a hypothetical ques-
tion and the form of the hypothesis transcends the previous
or subsequent testimony which would justify the hypothesis,
needless to say the answer is not a properly considered
item of evidence.
Whether a particular hypothesis is justified by the testi-
mony theretofore or thereafter admitted is a complicated
question requiring extensive reading of the record. A full
reading of the record will take place at a later date. Inter-
ruptions at this stage need the analyses of dozens of pages
of transcript. In order to decide whether a particular ques-
344.
tion is or is not a proper hypothetical question is a plain
waste of everybody’s time.
Where the objection is that the witness has no records
with him, the objection may or may not be valid, depend-
ing entirely on the so-called best evidence rule which, as
already pointed out, is a matter of discretion rather than
(fol. 496] iron inflexibility.
Objections on the ground of leading questions are always
trivial and never in my opinion have resulted in a reversal
error.
Of course, if the question is a leading question, the weight
to be given to the answer goes to the sound discretion of
a well-informed judge.
An objection on the ground that the answer is opinion
or opinion and conclusion is not an objection which must
inevitably prevail. Opinion evidence of course always
should be scrutinized with care. The admissibility of an
opinion is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge.
As Wigmore and other authorities have often pointed out,
opinion evidence is a guide line which does not constitute
a barrier.
Suggestive questions, like leading questions, are certainly
not desirable. Sustaining the objections to them during the
course of a viva voce examination in open court, particu-
larly in the presence of the jury, may become such, but,
once testimony has been taken in a deposition and the sole
ground is that the question put is leading or suggestive,
the point is a relatively minor and not reversable matter.
The objection that a conclusion has been made without
proper foundation is a question as to whether the conclu-
[fol. 497] sion really is persuasive. The trier of fact is
indeed not likely to give much weight to a conclusion which
he sees is without any buttress and support.
To exclude the answer merely because it is a conclusion
is to confuse admissibility with reliability, particularly in
a case where there is no jury.
Having read all the grounds of objections set forth in
Exhibits C for Identification—1 through 5, I am satisfied
that all of these points are worth considering at a time
that I am required to actually draft the findings, conclusions
and judgment.
I shall no doubt benefit particularly from those aspects
345
of the objections which go to the weight of the testimony.
I am not doubtful as to the general admissibility of the
depositions as a whole. They are offered for particular
points which it would take me a year to determine with a
fine tooth comb, but I have no intention of engaging in a
fine tooth comb process except where I finally decide that
an item has such potential relevance and admissibility as
by some chance being likely to influence me.
If it is likely to influence me, I shall most certainly con-
sider with great seriousness each of the detailed objections
already listed.
The objections as they are presented are overruled. The
[fol. 498] rights of all the defendants are preserved. All
of the exhibits offered by the Government are now admitted.
Tue GovERNMENT RESTS
Mr. Story: Your Honor, the Government rests.
CotLoquy Bretwren Court anp CouNnsEL FoR DEFENDANTS
The Court: The defendants may proceed.
Mr. McInerney: I just wanted to note, your Honor, that
although Grinnell is first mentioned in the caption here, as
a matter of convenience of counsel and witnesses, defend-
ants’ counsel had arranged among themselves to have the
other defendants proceed first.
The Court: That is satisfactory with me.
Mr. McInerney: Thank you, your Honor.
Mr. Fritz: Before I address myself to that, may I say
that my understanding of what your Honor has just said
and my understanding prior to that time lead me to the
conclusion at this time at the end of the plaintiff’s case we
need do nothing but simply reserve our right to make such
appropriate motions as may be necessary at the end of the
whole case.
The Court: That is up to you.
Mr. Fritz: Well, if your Honor will allow me to reserve
that position——
The Court: I will allow you to reserve nothing. You
may do what you want at the appropriate time.
Mr. Fritz: Well, at this time, not knowing what is in
the case——
(fol. 499] The Court: Excuse me,——‘‘not knowing what
346
is in the case’’? You have been in possession of these docu-
ments for how long, Mr. Fritz?
Mr. Fritz: A considerable period.
The Court: How long?
Mr. Fritz: I can’t answer that.
The Court: Six months at lest?
Mr. Fritz: I would say so.
The Court: Thank you. I don’t want any misrepresenta-
tion in any later court. I do not want it ever said that I
did not give you adequate time to examine the testimony.
Mr. Fritz: I didn’t say that, your Honor.
The Court: All right. I don’t want any representations,
because some representations made have given the impres-
sion—which is certainly not fair to this Court.
Mr. Fritz: Well, I think your Honor is stating again
what your Honor said earlier, and may I simply say again
and with the utmost respect that nothing was said or done
by me that was intended in any way to do anything else
except to protect the interest of my defendants, and that’s
the only interest I have ever had, sir.
The Court: Mr. Fritz, all that you have done is to say
that a Judge who has evidence that came into the Court
[fol. 500] necessarily was required to form an opinion, did
form it to the extent necessary to make rulings, and on that
basis you chose to file an affidavit of disqualification, the
character of which may be the character of you but not of
me.
Mr. Fritz: I respectfully except to your Honor’s com-
ments. I think my character is not in question in this case.
At this time I move to dismiss the complaint of the Gov-
ernment on the ground that it has failed to prove the cause
of action purportedly pleaded therein or any other cause
of action against my clients.
The Court: Denied.
Mr. Fritz: Exception.
Mr. McInerney: I would like for the record to make a
similar motion on behalf of Grinnell Corporation, your
Honor.
The Court: Denied. Excuse me——I thought you were
through.
Mr. McInerney: I just want to clarify one thing. As I
understand your Honor’s rulings with respect to the evi-
dence offered by the Government, they are now admitted
347
subject to a motion to strike at the end of the defendants’
case?
The Court: At any time you may make a motion to
{fol. 501] strike. I can’t by any ruling now prevent you
making a later motion. I have only ruled that at the mo-
ment the documents sre in evidence.
Of course, in any triai at any stage event X may require
a reconsideration of event A if the Judge ruled at the time
that A was before him and not when X was before him.
Mr. McInerney: But as of the moment everything that
has been offered by the Government has been found by the
Court to be evidentiary and to be probative and to be
worthy of admission in evidence.
The Court: Correct. You are right.
Mr. McInerney: If your Honor please, I have made my
pro forma motion which is that the Government has not
made out a prima facie case upon which relief can be
granted against this defendant.
Thank you.
The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Fritz: If your Honor please, while it is true that I
agreed with Mr. McInerney that he need not proceed first
and that I would undertake that burden; and while it is
likewise true that Mr. Story told me he would be finished
with this case by one o’clock or at the end of the half-day
session, frankly I’m not ready to proceed at this moment.
[fols. 502-535] The Court: 1:307
Mr. Fritz: Well, no, sir, I was going to ask your Honor,
in view of arrangements that I have to make with certain
people to be here, that I have a continuance until tomorrow
morning.
I had expected, frankly, that we would be spending a
little more time on the objections, but I think the matter
came up I felt it was desirable perhaps to put the thing in
in the form I did, and that took away a great deal of my
time that I might otherwise have spent.
The Court: May I say to you I will grant you your re-
quest, but may I also say to you I do not know at what
rate of speed you are capable of proceeding but I think by
now you must realize the rate of speed at which I do pro-
ceed.
Mr. Fritz: I have some notion.
348
The Court: You should not count on dealing with a tor-
toise.
Mr. Fritz: I don’t count on that at all, sir. All I count
on is enough time to do what is right for my clients, and I
expect your Honor will grant me that.
The Court: I will grant you until ten o’clock tomorrow
morning.
Mr. Fritz: Thank you, sir.
(Recessed until Tuesday, June 16, 1964 at 10 o’clock
a.m.)
349
(fol. 536] In rae Unrrep Srares District Court ror THE
District or MassacHusETTs
C.A. No, 2785 (R.I1.)
[Title omitted]
Wyzanski, D. J.
Transcript of Trial—June 16, 1964
{fol. 537] The Court: I have not had a chance to read
carefully the whole record. There are some very minor
alterations that I should like to make in the long ruling
which I made beginning at page 26 of the record yester-
day and ending at page 37 of the record.
On page 27, the third full paragraph, the third sentence
the word should be ‘‘may”’ not ‘‘made.”’
On page 28, at the bottom of the page, the comma should
be struck and there should be inserted the words ‘‘is in-
admissible, the question of its admissibility.’’
At the top of page 29, the comma at the end of the first
line should be struck. It should be a period. The second
line should begin with a I in the word ‘‘it.’’
On page 31, next to the last line, before the word ‘‘much’’
there should be inserted the word ‘‘as.’’
On page 32, the first full paragraph, the first sentence
should read, following the words ‘‘per se’’ as follows ‘‘but
to questions of substantive law.’’
Page 33, the first full paragraph, next to the last line,
between the word ‘‘conspiracy’’ and the word ‘‘declara-
tion’’ there should be inserted the particle ‘‘a,’’ that is just
the letter ‘‘a.’’
On page 34, the second full paragraph, the fifth line
following the word ‘‘need’’ at the end of the line should
appear the words ‘‘the analysis of.’’
[fol.538] On page 35, the fourth full paragraph, the last
sentence should have inserted in the next to the last line
the words ‘‘the point’’ after the word ‘‘suggestive’’ and
before the word ‘‘is.’’
On page 36, line 1, the word ‘‘persuasive’’ should be
followed by a period; the word ‘‘if’’ should be struck; the
word ‘‘the’’ should begin with a capital ‘‘T’’ and there
350
should be inserted the word ‘‘not’’ between the words ‘‘in-
deed’’ and ‘‘likely.’’
Those are the only changes which so far I have noticed
ought to be made, and since the ruling is the equivalent
of an opinion I think it important that it should read as
nearly in accordance with what I deem to be correct as I
can make it.
The defendants may now proceed.
Mr. Fritz: Mr. Guibert.
Francois Gurpert, Sworn
Direct Examination
By Mr. Fritz
Q. Will you state your full name, sir?
A. Francois Guibert. The Francois is spelled with ‘‘c-o-
i-s,’’ with the French spelling.
Q. Francois Guibert?
A. Yes.
The Court: All right. And the last name?
[fol. 539] The Witness: Guibert, G-u-i-b-e-r-t.
The Court: Thank you.
Q. Your address, Mr. Guibert?
A. 99 Sunset Trail, Denville, New Jersey.
Q. Have you been ‘subpoenaed my. the defendant Alarm
Companies to come here?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your business?
A. I am the general manager for the Newark District
Telegraph Company of Newark, New Jersey.
Q. What is the business if the Newark District Tele-
graph Company of New Jersey?
A. It is in the electric protection industry, central sta-
tion, local alarm, generally speaking all the services ren-
dered for electrical protection.
Q. Had you had an experience in the field of electrical
protection service prior to coming to the Newark District
Telegraph Company?
A. Yes.
Q. What experience had you had?
351
A. I worked for the American District Telegraph Com-
pany for ten years.
Q. In what capacity?
A. I started in their manufacturing department, and
then went in their inspection department. Then I was there
{fol. 540] foreman for the piant department in Newarr,
New Jersey.
Q. During what period was that?
A. That I was foreman, do you mean?
Q. With American District Telegraph Company.
A. 1931 through 1942.
Q. Did you go directly then from the American District
Teiegraph Company to the Newark District Telegraph
‘Jompany?
A. Yes.
Q. What had been the area of your operations while you
were with the American District Telegraph Company?
A. Well, in the first part, the first time I worked there—
that is, the first part of my appointment with them, it was
the assembly of component parts in the manufacturing
department.
Q. Of what, sir?
A. Everything that they manufactured. It would be
mostly electrical devices, components, assemblies to detect
alarms, and so forth.
Q. Did that include equipment used in central stations
as well as equipment used on subscribers’ premises?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then after you finished that phase of your work
for the ADT, if I may just abbreviate the name, then you
became, what, Foreman, did you say?
A. Well, after the manufacturing, I was an inspector
{fol. 541] for installation on subscribers’ premises. Then
I became foreman.
Q. And as foreman you did what?
A. I did all the work that pertains to maintaining the
installation, inspection and repairs, and so forth.
Q. What kind of services did that work which you did
relate to while you were with the ADT?
A. Fire alarm, burglar alarm, automatic fire alarm, the
whole protection industry.
Q. The whole gamut of the electrical protection service?
A. Yes.
es
352
Q. Then in the 1940s you left to go to the Newark Dis-
trict Telegraph Company, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is tiie New York District Telegraph Company an old
concern?
A. The Newark?
Q. I meant Newark. Thank you.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when it was founded?
A. 1887.
Q. When you went to the Newark District Telegraph
Company in the early 1940s did you immediately become
general manager?
A. No.
[fol. 542] Q. What did you do there first?
A. I was superintendent.
Q. General superintendent?
A. Yes.
Q. Briefly what did that encompass?
A. It meant taking care of all the technical affairs and
the physical operation of the operations of the whole com-
pany.
Q. Supervision of all the operating departments, I take it?
A. Yes.
Q. And all the personnel in those departments?
A. Yes,
Q. How long did you continue in that capacity?
A. From 1942 to the early ’50s; I don’t remember ex-
actly.
[{fol. 543] Q. But whenever that later date was, you be-
came general manager of the Newark District Telegraph
Company, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that capacity your duties have been what?
A. They now take in the total running of the company.
They include the financial affairs—well, general manager,
period. That’s it. The whole thing.
Q. Does that involve sales?
A. Yes.
Q. And supervision of sales?
A. Yes.
Q. Installations?
A. Yes.
Q. Surveys and inspection of premises?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you enumerate the types of electric protective
districts the Newark District Telegraph Company had
furnished since the time that you became general manager
and as it furnishes them today?
A. Well, we sell burglar alarm, both of the central sta-
tion type and of the local type, fire alarm; through the
Newark District Telegraph Company we sell central sta-
[fol.544] tion fire alarm. Through the New Jersey Fire
Alarm which is a subsidiary, we sell all the other types of
fire alarm which would be either local or auxiliary or re-
mote connected or the proprietary. The central station, of
course, sells holdup alarms, industrial supervision types
of electric protection. Well, we sell all of them.
Q. I think you have mentioned practically all, have you
not?
A. Yes. Well, those that come to mind immediately, yes.
Q. In the previous interlude that we have had, Mr.
Guibert, have you searched your mind to see whether you
have stated all of the different types of services which the
Newark District Telegraph Company renders?
A. I am afraid not. I was listening to the Court.
Q. Are you satisfied at this moment that you have enum-
erated practically all of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Without beimg unduly long about it, can you just give
us a brief description of each of the types of services so
the record will show what we are talking about? Suppose
you start with the central station burglar and fire alarm
and then from there go on into the other types of services?
A. The central fire and burglar alarm are systems which
[fol. 545] have detecting equipment at the premises and
recording equipment at the central station. They vary in
type because of the construction or the amount of protec-
tion needed: the type of protection needed, the goods, so
that if an alarm iis initiated at the premises, it is received
in the central station and the authorities that may handle
the case, whether they be police or fire, are alerted and at
the same time we dispatched our own representatives to
either let the other people in or assist in any way they can.
Q. By what means and over what means, Mr. Guibert, is
354
the alarm which emanates from the subscriber’s premises
transmitted to the central station?
A. In the case of our company, either over lines which
we lease from the telephone company or over lines which
we own ourselves and run in ducts owned by the telephone
company.
Q. Does your company own a substantial number of
lines in the streets of the city of Newark?
A. Yes.
Q. Under what—under a franchise?
A. Yes.
Q. Something that goes back many years?
A. The contract that we have with the telephone com-
[fol. 546] pany is dated 1889.
Q. And I take it that the existence of the ownership of
those lines dispenses with the necessity of Newark District
Telegraph Company paying line charges where those
owned lines are involved,—is that correct?
A. We pay the telephone company so much per mile for
the occupation of the duct.
Q. But not for the use of the line?
A. No.
Q. That’s a brief description of the central station, both
burglar and fire alarm operation, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you proceed to tell us what the other types of
services are, just briefly?
A. In the local alarm field—and the words ‘‘local alarm
field’’ are usually applied to burglar alarms—whereby an
installation is made on the premises and the alarm is given
to the public by means of a bell which hangs outside of
the premises.
Q. Did you say ‘‘public’’?
A. Usually they expect the public to call the authorities
if they hear this bell. That would be the description of the
local burglar alarm.
{fol.547] In the case of the local fire alarm system, that’s
mostly used for evacuation systems, where employees
occupy floors of a building and in case of a fire someone
pulls a fire alarm box and bells ring internally, to evacuate
the premises.
In the field outside of central station you have connec-
tions to telephone answering services for both burglar and
355
fire alarm. You have connections to police headquarters, in
many cases both for fire and burglar alarms, because in a
lot of small towns the only office that is manned in a munici-
pality twenty-four hours a day is the police station, so they
accept both fire and burglar alarm systems.
Q. Could I interrupt you just a moment to make a little
clearer the use of the telephone answering services in the
electric protection field? How does that function, in other
words?
A. Well, instead of sending a signal to a central office,
they get one of the telephone answering services that ac-
cepts messages from doctors, lawyers, or what-have-you,
to accept those signals, and they, in turn, will call the
authority, if its police or fire or the owner, depending on
what arrangements they make.
Q. Is that a fairly prevalent type of service, in your
[fol. 548] experience?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it in other areas immediately adjacent to the
Newark area to your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Now then, you mentioned direct connected service and
that is the service, I take it, from its name, which connects
the subscriber’s premises either to the police or fire depart-
ment directly in the case of either burglar or fire pro
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.