249 N.W. 26 | Mich. | 1933
The people review a judgment quashing an indictment which charges unlawful combination in restraint of trade and competition. Two counts were laid under the common law and two under the anti-trust statute, Act No. 255. Pub. Acts 1899, as amended by Act No. 60, Pub. Acts 1925 (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 16647 et seq.). The people now withdraw three counts and elect to proceed on the second count only, which is laid under the statute. The court held the act unconstitutional, and otherwise did not pass upon the sufficiency of the second count.
Defendants abandon the position taken by the court, and now say the statute is unconstitutional because of the provision:
"That the provisions hereof shall be held cumulative of each other and of all other laws in any way affecting them now in force in this State." 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 16655.
The argument is that the act of 1899 was thereby made supplemental and cumulative of a prior statute, Act No. 225, Pub. Acts 1889 (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 16674 et seq.), which is unconstitutional. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.,
Count 2 charges the offense in the words of the statute. The people properly concede that the "rule of reason" applies to it (People, ex rel. Attorney *672 General, v. Detroit Asphalt Paving Co.,
The indictment is amendable (People v. Sims,
Defendants suggest that if the indictment be amended it should be treated as an information and they be allowed an examination. The statute on amendments does not contemplate such procedure.
The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings under count two of the indictment.
McDONALD, C.J., and CLARK, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. *673