Los Angeles herald., 1907-12-03
CART WRIGHT
LAW is HELD
DEFECTIVE
ICE TRUSTS DEMURRERS ARE
SUSTAINED
AMENDMENT NEEDED TO MAKE
1T EFFECTIVE
No Place of Imprisonment Specified.
Justice Rose Decides in Favor
of Alleged Com
bjne

Justice II. H. Rose yesterday sustained
the demurrers of the defendants in the So
called ice trust cases. in which 1t was
Claimed the Cartwright antitrust law was
defective
According to the opinion of the justice,
the law is defective. in that it provides no
place of imprisonment in case of convic-
lion. To make the law effective, 1t VIII
oe necessary to so amend it that this de-
1ect will be cured.
Justice Roses decision follows:
Defendants are charged with VIOLA
ton of an act to define trust and provide
for criminal penalties and set damages
and punishment of corporations. persons.
firms and associations, or persons con-
nected with them, and to promote free
competition in commerce and all classes
of business in this state.
This Is the law commonly known as
the Cartwright antitrust law.
1T is objected, on behalf of the de-
fendants. that the court is without Juris.
dictlon for the reason that the penal sec
ton of this act does not expressly state
where the defendant shall be imprisoned.
IL convicted.
"The jurisdiction of police courts in
cities of the first and one-half class is
liked under the statutes of 1861, chaptc"
81, and the amendments thereto, which
provide:
Section .. Said police court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of all misdemean-
ors punishable by fine or by imprison-
,nent committed in the city where the SAID
police court Is held
Police Jurisdiction
This section confers upon the police
courts in cities of the first and one-half
class special jurisdiction over all misde-
:neanors committed in said city, thereby
granting special and higher powers to
these courts greater than the powers
granted to the justices courts of the city
and the police and recorders courts OF the
smaller cities and towns.
Included in this special jurisdiction are
the misdemeanors, which are those IN
which either the fine or imprisonment, or
both, for the offense exceeds the jurisdic-
ton of justice of the peace; thus TO
moving them from the jurisdiction of
justice of the peace or police Justice in
smaller cities and towns, but bringing
them clearly within the jurisdiction of a
police court In city of the first and one
half class, which is the class of the city
of Los Angeles
1--WE find many such misdemeanors spec
flied in the penal code of California, AMI
for is specifically fixed at Imprisonment
in the county JAIL Section 1S2. which pro-
vides for the punishment of criminal con
sriracy, provides that the Imprisonment,
shall be in the county jail, thus bringing
H. within the juri diction of the police
court of the city of Los Angeles.
The Texas antitrust law, similar in
it's provisions to the Cartwright law, pro-
vides that the punishment for it's violation
ehall be fine of not less than $50 nor
more than $4,000. and by Imprisonment in
the penitentiary not less than one nor
more than ten years.
Ohio Law Similar
'eThe Ohio antitrust statute, however,
is similar to the Cartwright law, and,
while providing for fine and imprison.
.nent, fails to designate the place of Inn
prisonment.
I'm all of the high grade misdemeanors
specified in the penal code of California
the offense is punishable BY either fine or
imprisonment or by both, and for term
in excess of the jurisdiction of justices CT
the peace; but, in each of these enact
ments it Is specifically stated that I'M
prisonment shall be in the county jail.
thus placing the matter clearly within
the jurisdiction Of this court.
I'm the Cartwright act, however, we
find no such provision, nor does the act
mitted, is a misdemeanor which, If so
stated. would place it clearly within the
jurisdiction of this court.
1.-The jurisdiction, therefore, is left in
doubt, and following the line of well laid
down decisions, the court can read moth
ing into the law as 1t stands nor give 1t
force or application by presumption or i'm
plication. 1t therefore follows that the
penal section of the Cartwright law falls
to confer jurisdiction upon this court.
''And for the foregoing reason the vari
Gus demurrers are hereby sustained.
Points Sufficient
'"The point discussed herein. being by
the court deemed sufficient, it becomes
unnecessary to take up the further points
raised upon demurrer"
The case against the so-called 'ice
trust was the outcome of an investiga-
ton conducted by District Attorney Blair
before the grand jury
The grand jury on August 10 last failed
TO return any. indictments against the Of
gicials of the various ice companies in
Los Angeles on the grounds that the
legislature classified n violation Of the
Cartwright antitrust law only as high
Grade misdemeanor, and that the issuing
of indictments discriminating the so-callel
trust officials was beyond it's Jurisdiction.
This, however, did not exclude the prob
aDHlty VI a. COtlbiHSs hlih tliC 81 july
did not by any means render a verdict
Of acquittal, declaring the officials inno-
cent of alleged. misdemeanor.
The district attorneys office, feeling
confident that 1t possessed sufficient evil
dence to go on with the prosecution, the
case was taken to the police courts.
On August 20 four presidents of ice com
panies. alleged to be members of trust,
were arrested on warrants issued from
Tolice Justice Roses court and were re-
leased on $1,000 bail each. The men against
whom the complaints were issued were
&. A. Bullfinch manager and agent of the
Union Ice company; j. G. Mckinney,
manager of the Los Angeles Ice and Cold
storage company; J. o. Cashln, manager
of the National Ice and Cold Storage COM
pany, and Frederick G. Calkins, president
OF the Merchants Ice and Cold Storage
company.
Price Fixed
The complaints charged the defendants
With willfully and unlawfully forming and
entering into combination to fix the
nrice at which ice should be sold.
II is alleged that the managers of the
companies met in July last and drew up