Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-04-13
DOING BUSINESS WITHOUT LICENSE.


Judged Guilty by Judge Norr-ii.
Judge Norrell rendered decision to-
day in the case Con appcaD of Salt
Lake City against oscar Groshell. find
ing the defendant guilty of doing busi-
ness, as a railroad ticket broker, with
out a license, as charged In the com
plant. Defendant Will be sentenced
Saturday.
Groshell was tried In the police court,
found guilty and fined $40, from which
he appealed. The case was heard be-
fore Judge Norrell ON Saturday last.
The main defense of Groshell was.
that in taxing him as "A ticket broker.
the city was attempting to tax inter-
state commerce. He further claimed
that his business was that of trans
porting passengers from points In this
State to points In other states: that
he was not the agent of any railroad.
railroad cars nor any description or
conveyance.
Commenting on the points the court
says:
"a transportation company of any
kind makes It's profits-not from spec
ulatlng in tlckets--but from the differ
ence between what 1t actually costs II
to carry passenger and the sum 1t re-
ceives for the transportation of the
passenger 1t could do this without
tickets, but the stock in trade of the
defendant is tickets,and without tlckets
his occupation or business would be
wholly gone II is the tickets them
selves upon which he makes his profits
and on which he does his business and
not upon any kind or description or
transportation or means of t.ansporta-
ton. Both the defendant. when he
sells, and the purchaser when he buys
the ticket, know that there IL no sys-
TEN of Transportation, no railroad line,
n N To astIl Il 80
veynnce that Is bound to honor the
ticket and transport the holder of 1t
to its intended destination.
THE analogy attempted to be made
between this case of the defendant and
that OF an express company fails OF a
parallel.
1.-THE express company actually and
truly transports and delivers the goods
or articles to the place of destination.
II 1t has no cars, as argued by counsel,
1t rents them hires them, or pays the
railroad cash for the use OF them; In
other words, for n consideration it uses
the railroad company's road and trains
to do its business and the railroad
company becomes liable to the express
company for noncompliance with the
terms OF the contract. Not 80 with the
defendant; he has no means ~ trans
portation himself and he does not em-
ploy any. and knows too. as shown by
inc testimony, inht II tne railroad COM
pany knows that the ticket has heen
sold by him. 1t VIII take up and cancel
the same and either compel the holder
to pay his fare or eject him from its
train.
THE defendant is mistaken when ne
says he Is transportation COM
pany; he has not the first element OF n
transportation company, so far as
shown by the testimony. He may sell
the tickets Of transportation companies,
but II he does so without their author
ity and not as their agent. this does
not constitute him a transportation
company. nor make him n carrier OF
interstate commerce and the defense
can not avail him.
The court then finds the defendant
guilty MS charged.
This was made a test case, n number
of Others having been arrested for yio-
'rtion of the same ordinance.