The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-09-14

OWN RECoGNIzANCE. ...a
In the case Of Inspector johnson, United
States Commissioner Atkins yesterday rem
dered bis decision, as follows:
The defendant Is an inspector OF tobacco
at Farmville Warehouse, Farmville, and, as
such. is governed by the following section
OF the State law:
If any inspector shall directly or indi-
rectly buy or sell, stem or manufacture any
tobacco in the city or county in which bis
warehouse is situated (other than tobacco
grown on his own plantationb he shall for.
felt ten dollars for every hundred pounds OF
tobacco so bought, sold. stemmed, or manu-
factured; but this section shall not prohibit
any inspector from acting as crier or agent
for any owner in selling tobacco, publicly
or privately, or at any tobacco exchange,
or at anction ut his warebouse."
.'It will be observed that the selling OF to-
bacco for others is not made part OF his
duty as inspector, but is allowed him as a
privilege, and in so acting he is the agent
OF the owner. not Of the State. He is for
hidden to sell for himself, but is allow ed to
sell for others, and he admits that he re-
ceives commissions therefor. The defend
ant, however, denies that he receives
II passes directly to the owner. In
fact, I believe it is his theory that he
does not sell at all. But certainly either he
or the owner sells; and the question arises,
Can n producer sell his own produce on
commisSionY II so, to whom does the COM
mission go? II the property is sold on
commission the person receiving the COM
mission would naturally be supposed to be
the one who sells. The Department Of In
ternal Revenue has decided that he who
sells on commissions is liable to be taxed,
no matter by what appointment, contract,
or agreement, transient or permanent, he
| is employed to make his sale" re-. A. Rol-
lins, June II, 1861; and the law says that
every person whose business it is, for him.
self or on commissions, to sell or offer for
sale leaf tobacco, is leaf-dealcr; and that
any leai-dealer selling tobacco to others
than those named in the law to whom he
may sell becomes retail dealer in leaf to-
| bacco, and liable to pay special tax as such.
| The defendant has taken out a license as
lcaf-dealer, and must therefore be regard
ed as such. Being a eaf-dealer, he has sold
tobacco during the months OF May, June,
and July, 1877, to one B. J. Harvey, a leaf
dealer, who, up to the 1st OF May, 1877,
and for several years anterior thereto, car
ried on the business, and had q license to
do so; but since that time, until the 18th OF
August last, he failed to comply with the
law in that respect.
| The law requires the dealer to post his
stamp in public place on his premises, so
that all parties dealing with him can act in
tclligently. The absence OF this stamp
would be pri,na tacie evidence that the
party had not paid the tax. 1t therefore
becomes incumbent upon the party selling
to use proper precaution against selling to
persons to whom they are forbidden to sell.
The sale Of tobacco by the defendant, q
leai-dealer, to a person not having license,
as we have seen, was contrary to law, and
although can we'll imagine how person
could 90 on and sell to another accustomed
to buy, yet I don't think the transaction:
should have been allowed to extend ovel
more than three months without inquiry or
the part OF the defendant. thereby allowing
the purchaser to carry ON business withou
| payment of the tax, and encouraging th
traffic, which is the special object Of its sup
preston. Besides the many inspectors il
the State interested in this matter, ant
should be definitely informed by de
cision of the Court what their responsible
ties in this connection are, the Govern
ment also has claims to a construction OF tn
law for the guidance OF It's officers.
The only duty have to perform in tn
premises is to ascertain whether there j
probable cause to believe that 4 statute o
the United States has been violated. Tha
the defendant is leaf-dealer is shown b.
his taking out license as such. That h
sold tobacco to a person other than those t
whom he was allowed by law to sell the evi
dence conciusiTely proves; and that he la
no license for such sales is admitted. Th
good character Of the defendant and tb
circumstances under which the sales wer
made are matters for the consideration Of
jury, not for me.
will therefore send the case to the mex
grand jury, and take the defendants Owl
recognizanee in the sum OF $500 for bis ap
pearance.
Perhaps it is not important in this case
but the State inspection laws often alluded
to in this examination, and spoken OF b,
Hlr. Atkins in his opinion, were all repealed
last spring.