Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-06
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian- Pilot.)
GREENSBORO V. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
March II. 1899
ONE WHO DELIVERS AN AETI-
Gle ALREADY SOLD AND COL
LECTS THE PRICE, OR WHO
SELLS WITHOUT TRAVELLING
ABOUT IS NOT a PEDDLER OR
1TINERANT MERCHANT
This was criminal proceeding insti-
tutcd by the city of Greensboro against
the defendant upon the charge of vio-
latinS its charter and ordinances
against 'pcddlcrs and itinerant mer-
chants" On the trial the jury found Il
special verdict, as follows: That on
the 10th day of June. 1888. r. j. Will
llamS ala sell IL picture frame and pic
lure in the city of Greensboro, N c.,
without having; any license to sell the
same from the said city. That some
time prior thereto IN agent of the Chi
cago Portrait Company made an execu-
tory contract With Mrs. J. Il, DE Lormo
10 lufn.sh her with Il portrait and frame
OF the manufacture of the Chicago Por-
trait Company, doing business in the
CITY OF Chicago State of Illinois, to be
subject to her approval, and any exccu-
tory contract made by her to purchase
not 10 be binding, unless she afterwards
approved OF the frame. when delivered
To her. That. in pursuance of the exc
cutory contract so made. the Chicago
PORTRAIT Company shipped TO the city of
Greensboro, n. c., several pictures and
several frames in bulk. whereupon the
uclenuhnt' X. ). Williams. acting for
me chicago Portrait Company. broke
me buIk OF the original package. con-
signed 10 the Chicago Portrait Com
Iany, Greensboro. y. c.. and placed
te pictures in the frames, and sold and
delivered one to Mrs. j. H.. De Lormc as
II Il oil.
pursuance of the cXccutory contract
heretofore alluded to. That section 81
on the charter of Greensboro ~ C.. is
as follows: That. in addition To the
subjects listed for taxation. the alder
men may levy Il tax upon the fo,lo,vinr
subjects. namely: % Upon all timer
ant merchants or peddlers. vending or
Offering TO vend. in the city IL license
lax not exceeding fifty dollars n year.
except such only rs sell books, charts
or mans or wares of their own manu-
ihcturc. but not cXceptin,: wonders of
1ncUlclno ny WhomsoeVcr manufac tur-
cd; not more than one person shall ped
uie under Il single license That the
following l. an ordinance duly passed
by he board OF aldermen under and bv
virtue Of the foregoing section of said
charter: lie 1t ordained hv the hoard
oi a!dcrmen Of the city of Greensboro,
that All iiineraDt merchants or peddlers.
except such as sell books, charts or
maps. whether sold by anctioneers or
otherwise. and except further, goods Of
tne.r own manufacture. but not except
Nn'dlc heS ny Nhomsoever manufacture
cd. ohorinS for same goods by sauple
or otherwise at retail in the town Of
greensboro, snail pay license tax of
fifty dollars per ycar'
pom this special verdict. the court
being of opinion that The defcndan, ,yae
guilty. the verdict was 50 entered. ana
- : 4rr 81 - II i
mont pronounced thereon
The court SAYS:
me only question presented hv the
special verdict is as to whether the de-
fendant was an 'itincrant merchant o.,
neddier. "pcddlcr" is defined in ali
ne is"uinS ieNicons. and in many judi
clfi declsicns. But about the STRONGEST
ana most favorable definition for The
piainiiif that we find is that given in
tango Co. V. Carver, lis n. c. 33i
lihWkcfs; Those deceitful fellows who
Wemt from place to place buying ana
seilins; and the appellation
seems to grow from their uncertoin
4 wanderinss, like persons that With
hawks seek their game where thnv c,n
ma II. Hawkers. peddlers and nettv
shopmen: Persons travelling from town
to town with goods and merchandise ;,
rms quotation is from the opinion Of
Justice Gray in Emert " State 15f T.,
;. 800. And even under this defnition
we cannot hold that the special vordini
makes the defendant a peddler. No
does it constitute him an "itineront
merchant,"-a travelling mcrchant-if
there is Il difference between n noddIer
and an "itinerant merchant" There is
no iindinE-not even a uggestion-that
he Travelled about to sell pictures M
deed. this idea is negatved when II yyae
round that the picture was sold before
1t was sent to him. and he only deliv-
cred it, and received the price agreed
upon beforehand. 1t seems to us that
IN the language of the late Chief Jus'
nee PEARSON, the plaintiff has gotten
the wrong sow by the ear" Reversed
CARTER V. STATE