Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/796

 PUBLISHING FALSE NEWS with intent to enhance or decry the price of any goods or merchandise, or to the offense of preventing, or endeavoring to prevent, by force or threats, any goods, wares, or mer chandise, being brought to any fair or market, but that every such offense may be enquired of, tried and punished, as if this Act had not been made." There can be no doubt that the offenses excepted by this section are punishable in England like other common law misdemeanors.1 There is no enactment in Canada precisely similar to section 4 (supra) of the English statute, but there are enactments in the Code designed to serve the same or a similar purpose. The first offense mentioned in the English Act (s. 4) would apparently be covered by the Code, if the price of any goods or merchandise were enhanced or decried by the wilful and knowing publication of any false news or tale. Then in that part of the Code dealing with offenses connected with trade — Every one is guilty of an offense punishable on indictment, or on summary conviction before two justices, and liable on conviction to a fine not exceed ing one hundred dollars, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labor, who (a) beats or uses any violence or threat of violence to any person with intent to deter or hinder him from buying, selling, or other wise disposing of, any wheat or other grain, flour, meal, malt, or potatoes, or other prod uce or goods, in any market or other place; or (6) beats or uses any such violence or threat to any person having the charge or care of any wheat or other grain, flour, meal, malt, or potatoes, while on the way to or from any city, market, town or other place, with intent to stop the conveyance of the same. So, also, by section 498 of the Code — Everyone is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars, and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprison ment, or, if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars, 1 i Russ., 6th Ed., 476.

615

and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, or transportation company, (a) to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or (b) to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or (c) to unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; or (d) to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the pro duction, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation, or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property. Under sub-section (d) of this section two incorporated trade associations were indicted and convicted, at Toronto, of conspiracy in restraint of trade, and a penalty of $5000 imposed upon each of the defendants.1 In an instructive treatise on "State Con trol of Trade and Commerce," by Mr. Albert Stickney of the New York Bar, the writer doubts the soundness of the decision (supra) in the Waddington Case. He says that no authority exists, so far as he could discover, for the decision; that it is singular that the original statutes creating the offenses should have been passed if the offenses existed already; and that it is also clear, that the lawyers who drafted the repealing Act would have abolished the offenses, if they had supposed that the offenses still continued to exist at common law. Some recent opinions of the English judges are opposed to this view. In the Mogul Steamship Company v. McGregor, Gow & Co.,2 Lord Justice Fry expressed the opinion that the offenses mentioned were offenses at common law. "The ancient common law of this 1 Rex v. Master Plumbers and Steam Fitters Co-operative Association, Limited, et al. (1907), 14 O. L. R., 295. ' (1889) L. R., 23 Q. B. D., at p. 628.