Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-09-10
THE GAzETTE FIT WORTH TExAs SUNDAY sEPTEBER ~ 1882


mons vs.. City Of Lewiston. H. III. $500
.Nor Is one pcddlcr who has
storr aud travels through the adjoiiunt
,ountry soliciting orders, which be after
wards fills Commonwealth vs.. Eici-
cnbufg. II Rep. 21s) go,
10 lbe zane effect is tie ease Of VII
iage Of Stamford ". Fisher, 40 n. u
sur O.. 1873
80 the lightniug-rod agent who sells
no rods without putting them up, and
who charges by the foot for his work in
putting up the rods. or repairing them,
Is declared not to be peddler. "-tEze
vs.. Thrasher. 40 Ga. $40
In Illinois II has been expressly held
that soliciting orders and taking orders
and measurements for the making OF
shirts Is not in violation Of city ordi-
nance which prohibits selling or offer
inc for sale, bnrtering or exchanging
any goods, wares. merchandise or other
articles OF value. without licensc.--tCity
Of Elgin vs.. Picard, % ILL., App. 3lOl
This same question has very recently
though for the first time in the history
Of our state, been considered by, tho
Kansas City court Of appeals, and de
cided In accordance with the decisions
which l have referred to above,
In the case of the Stste Of Missouri
vs.. Hoffman, 80 NJ. A. go, the identical
question arose for decision upon tile fol-
lowing state of facts;
Defendant went from house 10 house
displaying samples carried with him IN
a case and taking orders for his hrm.
Il his firm approved the orders 1t shipped 1ei
the goods TO defendant, who Delivered
them aud took the cash payment with
an obligation to the firm for the balance,
which was collected by the iirm. vi
this state Of fncts the court inler'nlii
says; The decisive question is whether,
under the facts detailed IN evidence, the
business transacted by the defendant
constituted him peddler within the
meaning Of the statute. We think NOT.
His employment did not fill the definition
of the word peddler as generally under
stood. The popular Specification OF the
word peddler is said 10 be- "A small re-
tail dealer, who, carrying his merchan-
disc with him, travels from house TO
house or from place 70 place, either on
foot or ON horseback or In vehicle
drawn BIS one or more animals, exposing
his goods for sale "nd selling them, Inc
distinction Is That pcddl"r goes from
house TO house or place ~ place carry
ing his articles Ut merchandise Win
him and concurrently sells and delivers
-tBlllou vs.. State, 81 Ala. l45J
"A pehdler' says Endicott j, In Com
monweaith VS.. Farum, ia Mass, 270.
lis an itincrant trader who goes from
place to place and from house TO house
| carrying for sale aud exposing to sale
the goods wares or merchandise which
| h, CARRIES" Now the defendant carried
| nothing with him TO be sold and dclty-
cred lie had with him only The samples
! aud these lac did not sell. lie only so
| lictcd orders for goods. which orders
were 20 be forwarded TO his employer,
| and the sale was not complete until ur-
ceptnnce by them and delivery at some
future day. Defendant was more prop
erly commercial travelling agent, solicit
| ting business for his house.
That our statute has n view the ped
dler carrying his goods, selling and de-
| liycrng concurrCntly, Is further seen hy
reference to section I217 of the chapter
| on pedllers There shall be levied aud
| paid on all pedders' licenses a state tax
| Of the following rates: First, II tht
pcldlcr travel aud carry his goods OF
| foot 81 for every period OF six months
second, II he travels and carries his goods
on Que Or more horses or beasts Of bur
| den, $40 for every period Of ELK months
| third " he travel and carry his good
In u cart or other land carriage, $50 fol
every period of six months exc, show
ing clearly that the pedller as under
stood by the legislature, IL he who car
rics his goods to he sold about with him
awe do not think that the travelling
agent or drummer 50 called. who gue,
from place 10 place soliciting orders
| whether TO be delivered at residence, shot
or store. or whether such orders ar,
taken from samples. or other description
comes within the proper definition .
pcGller.
In our opinion. therefore. defendan
was not It pcddlcr within the meaning
Of the law, aud hence not subject t
the license tax imposed by the statut
relating To reddlcrs aud their licenses.
Among others the following adjudicat
ed cases sustain us: In r. Houston
a. Fed. Req. $50; Emmons vs. City o
Lewiston, u y. II. Rep IS; Ballou vi
state supra: Commonwealth vs.. fRrnum
supra; City Of Kansas VS.. Collins 3
l\nns, 13l
1t follows that in this state one cal
rying samples and soliciting orders fror
customers Is not pcddlcr within III
meaning Of tile terms usually pmpuye
in the statute aud ordinance rcquirin
pcddlCig TO luke out license Very r,
specially yours,
EDMUND A. Il. GARESCHE
Section lUI2 volume /. revised statute
of Missouri, 1851. grants authority
cities Of the fourth class and towns an
villages, aud In the case of the tow
Of Trenton vs.. Clayton the courts sa
that grants Of legislative power
municipalities are to he strict
construed and that municipal corpor.
I tlons have no power to license CONNIE
cinl agents or drummers.
. 1