It is declared

"to enter into the purpose

$5,000 or imprisonment for not less than 6 months or more than one year or both. Each day's violation constitutes a separate offense. See also § 4427 (-7). As to allegations in indictment, see § 4427 (-5). As to sufficiency of indictment, see Gage v. State, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 724 (Del. C. C., 1903); Hughes v. State, 29 Id. 237 (1907; see also, as to county in which one may be indicted). In Hammond v. State, 78 Ohio St. 15; 84 N. E. 416; 15 L. R. A. N. S. 906 (1908), § 4427 (-6), providing that "the character of the trust or combination alleged may be established by proof of its general reputation as such" was held invalid as in violation of the 14th amendment. See also, under Mich. (§ 217); State v. Jacobs, supra. By a provision added by L. 1906, p. 313, provision is made as to testimony and production of books, etc. By § 4427 (-8) any contract or agreement in violation of the provisions of the act "shall be absolutely void and not enforcible either in law or equity." This was applied in Fisher v. Flickinger Wheel Co., 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 501 (1906). § 4427 (-10) seems substantially identical with Ill. L. 1891, p. 206, § 2 (see § 209), except that the prohibition lere applies to "persons, partnerships and associations" as well as to corporations. The penalty is a fine of not less than $50 or more than $1,000. By § 4427 (-11) a person injured in his business or property by reason of

anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the act may recover twofold the damages. For similar provisions, see under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); Neb. (§ 222); N. M. (§ 223); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Utah (§ 233); Wis. (§ 235). See Barron v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 7 Ohio N. P. 528 (Cin. Super. Ct., 1900). As to definition of "person," see § 4427 (-12).

As to effect of § 3256 as to holding stock in other corporations, see § 155, supra. By § 3256b (added by L. 1906, p. 229) is prohibited the sale of the property of a corporation "for the formation of or to any trust or combination for the purpose of restricting trade or competition."

42 G. S. (1908), § 6679. By Const., art. 5, § 44, "the legislature shall define what is an unlawful combination, monopoly, trust, act or agreement, in restraint of trade, and enact laws to punish persons engaged in any unlawful combination, monopoly, trust, act, or agreement, in restraint of trade, or composing any such monopoly, trust, or combination." By G. S., § 6680 provision is made as to the duties of the attorney-general; also for an injunction and appointment of a receiver. By § 6681 threefold damages may be recovered for injury in business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the act. For similar provisions, see under

Cal. (§ 206); Ind. (§ 210); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); Neb. (222); N. M. (§ 223); Ohio (§ 227); S. D. (§ 230); Utah (§ 233); Wis. (§ 235). By § 6682 a foreign corporation violating the act is denied the right to do business in the State. By § 6683 it is prohibited to discriminate by sale, etc., at a lower rate in one section, etc., than another, "or at the same rate or price at a point away from that of production or manufacture as at the place of production or manufacture," "if the effect or intent thereof is to establish or maintain a virtual monopoly hindering competition, or restriction of trade." See also Const., art. 9, § 45, in part here embodied.

For instances of similar legisla tion, see § 31, supra. By § 6684 the penalty is a fine of not less than $50 or more than $10,000 and imprisonment for not less than 10 days or more than 10 years, each day's violation to constitute a separate offense. Provision is also made for recovery of a penalty in a civil action. By § 6685 "in any indictment or information for any offense named in this act, it is sufficient to state the purpose or facts of the trust, monopoly, unlawful combination in restraint of trade or

commerce, and that the accused is a member of, acted with, or in pursuance of it, or aided or assisted in carrying out its purpose without giving its name, or description or stating how, when or where it was created." By § 6686 provision is made as to witnesses; by § 6687 as to duty of prosecuting officers.

43 Id., § 6688, the provisions of § 6684 being made applicable. By Const., art. 9, § 41, "no corporation chartered or licensed to do business in this State shall own, hold, or control, in any manner whatever, the stock of any competitive corporation or corporations engaged in the same kind of business, in or out of the State, except such stock as may be pledged," etc. By G. S., § 6689 of the act of 1907 a corporation violating such provision forfeits its right to do business in the State, besides being subject to a penalty of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000. Compare under Ga. (§ 207); Miss. (§ 219); N. Y. (§ 224); Tex. (§ 232).

By § 6690 provision is made as to the liability of the property of a corporation for fines or penalties. By § 6691 "whenever any business, by reason of its nature, extent, or the existence of a virtual monopoly therein, is such that the public

must use the same, or its services, or the consideration by it given or taken or offered, or the commodities bought or sold therein are offered or taken by purchase or sale in such a manner as to make it of public consequence, or to affect the community at large as to supply, demand or price or rate thereof, or said business is conducted in violation of § 1 (6679), said business is a public business, and subject to be controlled by the State, by the corporation commission or by an action in any district court of the State, as to all of its practices, prices, rates and charges." See also as to duty to render services or offer commodities "without discrimination and adequately to the needs of the public." By § 6692 "in all prosecutions or proceedings under this act, it shall be sufficient to prove that a trust, monopoly, combination in restraint of trade or commerce existed without the period not barred by the statute of limitations, and was not continued in any form into and during any portion of the period not so barred, and that the defendant belonged to it, or acted for or in connection with it without proving all the members belonging to it, or proving or pro

ducing any article or agreement or any written instrument on which it may have been based, or that it was evidenced by any written instrument at all." See § 6693 as to application of act to violation "committed before its passage." § 6694 applies to bridge building. In Anderson v. Shawnee Compress Co., 17 Okla. 231; 87 Pac. 315; 15 L. R. A. N. S. 846 (1906), an agreement was held invalid as tending to restriction upon competition in the compression of cotton throughout the cotton-producing States.

As to former act, see Territory v. Long Bell Lumber Co., 99 Pac. 911 (Supm. Ct. Okla., 1908). Here a statute allowing an injunction "in the name of the Territory to enjoin and suppress the keeping and maintaining of a common nuisance" was applied in allowing relief against a monopoly of the supply of lumber, fuel and grain.

By Const., art. 2, § 32, "perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed." For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); Md. (§ 216) ; N. C. (§ 225) ; Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wyom. (§ 236).