The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-01-13
No. Is. $50.
State of Kansas

State of Kansas
The International Harvester Company of
America
Appeal from Shawnee County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Graves, ].
126i Cen Stat. 1851. Includes both civil and
criminal actions as defined in the code of
:. TTUeeV Word process. as used in the
statute above mentioned. includes writs
used in both civil and criminal actions for
bringing parties into court.
B. An information. drawn under the anti
trust laws of this state. wherein the Of
commodities made in violation of section
2433 Gen. Stat. 1901. is not fatally defective
eral combinations. associations. trusts and
| corporations are mentioned generally, to
which the defendant is averred to have
| been a member when the alleged sales
| were made.
an Information similar to the one above
\ mentioned. the state for the purpose of
sustaining the averment that the defend
ant was a member of unlawful COM
bination when the alleged sales were made,
produced a witness who heard the presf-
] dent Of the defendant corporation deliver
/ an address. and the witness was permit
ted to, repeat statements made in such adj
dress. AT the time this address was deliv-
cred. the defendant had been but recently
organized and was then entering upon
| its first years business. The defendant
/ was engaged In the manufacture and sale
or all kinds of harvesting machines and
was prepared to transact large business,
an immense quantity of merchandise on
hand: The address was delivered to q
meeting composed of local agents and
dealers in harvest implements from the
| states of Missouri. Kansas. Oklahoma and
| Colorado. who had been called together
! for the purpose of consulting about mat
tiers concerning the trade in such imple-
| the defendant-a new company supposed
| to be of unusual strength and capacity,
information about the defendant, its presi-
| dent was invited to deliver an address to
the meeting upon that subject The in
yitation was accepted: the address was
delivered In this address, the speaker
stated that the defendant had obtained
| control of nfnety-five per cent of the cap
| ital used in harvester machinery, and a
majority of the companies heretofore en-
gagged in that business were already in the
combination. and they hoped to get the
remainder; that the company expected to
make prices uniform. and so manage the
business that both the companies and their
| agents would make more money than they
had done. Held that the admission of
such evidence was not error.
| .. In an information similar to the one
| against the defendant were alleged sep
arately. each in a different count. Several
| counts. however. averred the sale as of the
S Whesher @t they ~ We're made In the same
transaction or not. No question was raised
grounds stated read: The information
plead thereto. The offenses are not stated
with certainty." The evidence shows that
| the sales were separate ana distinct trans
actions. The trial proceeded, apparently
upon the theory that the sales were sep
arate. Each sale was established by the
same evidence. At the close of the trial,
! the question was presented for the first
| time. by requests for special instructions
| to the Jury. that the several counts
charged but one offense. which were re-
fused. 1t does not appear that the de-
PENDANT was preiudiced thereby. Held not
Ali the Justices concurr1ng.
| A true copy.
| Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
| LSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court