The Richmond palladium. (Richmond, Ind.) 1906-1907, 1907-03-05
JUDGE RULES FOR CITY
LONG OPINION BY FOX
Declares that the Peddlino Ordinance
10 Valid and that Henry zuttemeis-
ter Violated lt-of Interest to Mer-
chants.

Judge FOX In the circuit court yes
terday made a ruling to the effect
that the city peddlins ordinance is
valid. This ruling was made in the
case OF the City of Richmond against
Henry Zuttermeister and in the case
of the City of Richmond against Har-
~ Partridge and Ford Curry. Several
weeks age Judge Converse in hearing
these cases in the city court ruled
that the ordinance was invalid be-
cause it was unconstitutional. Attor-
ney r. X. Shiveley for the defend
ants, averred that clause in the or
dinance Disseminated between mer-
chants engaged In the same class of
business
In his ruling Judge Fox stated that
one of the exceptions contained in the
proviso of the ordinance exempts all
peddlers who produce their own mer-
chandise from paying for a license to
operate under. This clause in the
proviso creates two classes of ped
dlers and eliminates discrimination
The ruling will be of great interest to
all local business men and is in part
as follows:
Opinion Of the Court.
The defendants in the above enti-
tied causes are charged with violating
an ordinance of the city of Richmond
by peddiing bananas in said city
without procuring license so to do as
required by said ordinance. Substan-
TALLY the same facts are charged in
each case and for the purpose of trial
were admitted to be true as charged.
The only question submitted for the
determination of the court is the val
idity of the ordinance in question. It's
validity is challenged by the defend
ants as being unconstitutional in
this: that it discriminates between
persons in violation Of Article 6S of
the Bill of Rights which provides:
That the lawmaking power shall not
grant to any citizen. or class OF citi-
zens privileges or immunfties which.
upon the same terms, shall not equal
ly belong to all citizens"
Scope Was Limited.
1t was conceded in argument that
the city of Richmond has the power
to require persons desiring to peddle
merchandise within it's corporate linn
it's to procure license before so do
ing. Acting under this power the city
council enacted the ordinance upon
which this suit is brought. The body
of the ordinance is sweeping In its
terms. 1t provides. THAT it shall be,
unlawful for any person to pursue
the business of peddler in the city
of Richmond without first obtaining q
license in the manner provided by the
ordinances of said city" 1t is further
provided in the ordinance that: a
peddler for the purpose of this ordi-
nance. shall be held to be any person
who. by solicitation or outcry. takes
anything from house to house In any
manner and offers to sell the same
for money Standing alone, these
vendors of merchandise in said city
to procure a license. 1t would prohib-
it the selling OF milk and bread and
all other domestic products unless
license was procured. Evidently the
city council did not desire this. SO a
proviso was added to the ordinance
for the purpose of limiting its scope.
In this proviso it was provided that
the ordinance should not apply to
ANY person selling or bartering
fruits, vegetables or ordinary farm |
or garden produce, fish. fowl. grain,
meat and the like, of their own pro- |
duction-" This proviso. 1t is claimed,
makes discrimination between per-
sons and creates monopoly SO that |
it falls within the prohibition con- |
tanned In the section OF the Bill OF |
Rights above mentioned and is con- |