192 Mich. 139 | Mich. | 1916
Frank G. Lafer, a retail dealer in groceries in the city of. Detroit, was informed against for having violated Act No. 276, Pub. Acts 1913 (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 15049). A motion to quash the information was interposed, on the ground that the act was unconstitutional. The motion was granted, and the prosecuting attorney has moved this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to set aside its order. The attack upon the statute is aimed at the title. It is said the title is invalid because it violates the constitutional provision that “no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.” Art. 5, § 21. The title reads as follows:
“Ah act to regulate and prohibit false, deceptive, fraudulent and misleading advertising in newspapers, periodicals or other publications, or by circulars or hand bills.” •
The precise contention is that the title embraces two objects instead of one, and that they are “repugnant, inconsistent and self-contradicting”; that regulation and prohibition are repugnant to each other.
1. It appears to be agreed by both counsel that the act is a prohibitory and not a regulatory one. If we concede for the purpose of the argument that respondent’s position is sound that the terms prohibition and
2. The further question is raised that the act is broader than the title, because the inhibition in the act against such advertising is extended to books, whereas the title mentions only “newspapers, periodicals or oth
“Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated." (36 Cyc. p. 1119.)
Under this rule we are of the opinion that the word “books" would be included within the words “other publications," because they are of the same general class as newspapers and periodicals.
3. A third point raised is that, while it was within the power of the legislature to prohibit advertisements which are untrue, it is beyond the police power of the legislature to prohibit advertisements which are “deceptive and misleading." The principal reason assigned is that what might tend to deceive one person might not deceive another, and it would thereby result in leaving the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused to the whim of successive juries. In any given case it would be a question of fact whether the representation of fact in the advertisement was untrue, deceptive, or misleading. This determination would be attended by no more difficulty than is frequently encountered by juries in determining what the intention of the respondent was by what he said and did. This argument could as well be made against many penal offenses on our statute books, where a question of fact is involved. We have no doubt about the power of the legislature in the exercise of the police power of the State to enact such legislation.
4. Several questions are raised against the sufficiency of the information. The newspaper advertisement was set out in the information, and respondent was charged with making therein “certain assertions, representations and statements of fact, which were untrue, de
The writ will issue as prayed.