Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-12-08
PEDDLERS' LICENSES.
A TEST CASE BEFORE TIE RICHMOND
HUsrIHGs COURT.
The Act OF the General Assembly Brought
Under Review to Be Carried to
the Highest Courts

The case OF the Commonwealth vs.. o. S.
Wilson, tried in the Hastings Court yester-
day, is one Of more than ordinary interest,
being the first arising under the act passed
by the General Assembly last winter lmpo-
sing a license-tax OF from $500 TO $500 on
psddlers.
The act contains proviso that Il should
not be construed to require license from
any person selling his own crops or any
manufacturer selling his own manufactures.
THE QUESTION.
Mr.. Wilson 4 an agent OF the Kendall
Manufacturing Company, OF Providence, X.
l., and New York city. Being in doubt az TO
the construction Of the statute he desired
test case 10 be made, and got Mr.. III. Ullman,
grocer Of this city, to become complainant,
which was done.
Mr.. Wilson was bailed at the police station
W Mr.. Edgar Allan, and when the case was
before the Police Court he waived an examl-
nation in order that the complaint might
bave jury trial and finally go to the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals.
DIR. Wilson was represented yesterday by
Nr. Edgar Allan, aud Common wealths-At-
torney SpotsTood appeared Tor the State.
THE BUSINESS.
The testimony Of Messrs. Wilson and Ull-
man wss introduced and showed that the
agents OF the Kendall Company sold their
goods by sample TO wholesale aud retail mer-
chants, giving a guarantee that they would
employ sgeuts TO sch from door to door
certain quantity OF their goods, giving the
profits entirely 10 the Richmond merchants
who bought from them.
This was done IN order to advertise their
goods. and al a cost largely IN excess OF the
price received from them.
DEFENCE's CONTENTION.
II was contended for the defence:
1. That the exception In the law must APP
DIV to nonresident as well as resident manu-
facturers, otherwise the law would be repug-
nsut to the Federal Constitution.
.. That the act Of the Assembly was In
tended to protect the merchants OF virginia
against strolling tradesmen and not to hinder
their legitimate mode OF advertising, which
was beneficial rather than inimical to our
State commerce.
3. That the goods sold by the defendant
came direct from the manufacturer and were
usyer merged into property belonging to
citizens OF this State so as TO be subject to
taxation.
4. That what the manufacturer was
privileged 10 do under the statute Ia his
own person he could do by al agent.
THE COMNoSwEALTRs CLAIM.
For the Commonwealth il was contended
that license was personal privilege. and In
INF. case the right could only be exercised
by the man who Manufactured the goods.
Also. that the question was immaterlal
whether the sales made resulted in profit
or not since the act done constituted the il
legality OF the peddicr.
The Jury were ont about bali an hour and
then returned verdict OF acquittal.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE The VERDICT.
This being prosecution under the reve-
nue laws. the Commonwealth has the right
oi appeal, aud a motion was made by Colonel
spotsWood to set aside the verdict OF the
jury.
DECISION RESERVED.
Judge Atkins took the matter under con-
sheraton, and will decide on next Wednes-
day whether he will grant new trial.
IL ia expected that an appeal will be taken
whatever may be the decision OF the Court.