Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-07
LAW COURT DECIDES AGAINST
STATE IN IT|NERANT VENDOR CASE
For the Defendant in the Case of State Yer
sus John c.. Littlefeld of Wells, York County

U. S. Supreme Court March 20, 1913.
232 U. S. Supreme, 665. in which case
the defendant was convicted in the
acts similar to the acts done by the de-
State court under a statute for doing
PENDANT in this case, without license,
and it was held on a writ of error that
the conviction was error. BY the rules
/ of law declared in that case, and in
the acts of the defendant were not IN
lawful The soliciting of orders for
Crenshaw VS.. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 299,
goods to be shipped from another
state, their shipment from another
state to this state, and the delivery of
the goods TO the persons who ordered
them, was interstate commerce, and
the state cannot burden interstate
commerce by compelling persons en-
gagged in that commerce to pay spec
| ial tax for the privilege of engaging in
such comemrce
Second: Did the sale of the three
persons above named of goods that
had been ordered by other parties from
the defendant to be shipped them
from another state, which they did
not receive by reason of not having
called for them, render the defendant
an itinerant vendor within the provis-
ions of chapter As. The goods were
sold from car, and we must deter
mine what the statute means by the
words temporary or transient bust
ness" Section four of said chapter pro-
vides that very itinerant vendor desir-
| ing to do business in this state shall
make deposit with the secretary of
State, and take out q state license
Section six provides that every appli-
cation for a local license shall be sign
Z ed by the holder of the ACCOMPANYING
state license, and shall specify the kind
and line OF goods then in stock in such
town, with the name of the town in
which said goods were last exposed
or offered for sale. Such local IL
cense fee shall Ire computed and col
collected in each town respectively in
which said goods shall be sucessively
oHered or exposed for sale.
The defendant had no line of goods
in stock in the town of York The
words I'm stock" as used in the Stat
ute, means on hand for sale. All the
| goods he had on hand in York had
| been bargained for and sold The
| were in York for the purpose of de-
/ livery only. The Statute means that
! whenever a stock of goods is moved
1
| put upon sale and sold in the town,
the owner or person having them in
| possession for that purpose must OBJ
| tain the licenses specified by Chapter
45 before he engages in the business
of selling them. The goods were not
in stock for sale They were not TAX
en- to York for sale, but were there to
be delivered to the parties who had or
dered them and for whom they had
been shipped from another state. and
the sale of them. when the persons Oh
| whose orders they had been shipped
from another state, did ,Iot come for
| them, was a mere incident of the law
| full business Of the defendant: that is.
the delivery Of goods brought into the
! State by interstate commerce. and
| not the business of an itinerant ven
| dor. Business, in a legislative sense,
is that which occupies the time, at
| tention, the labor of men for the pur-
| poses of livelihood or for profit,
| calling for the purpose of a livelihood"
The acts of the defendant upon this
branch of the case. when judged by
the definitions and authorities, show
that he was not engaged in business 5
an itnerant vendor within the mean
ing of Chapter %. r. $. Without de-
Gliding whether the sales were at re-
tail or not it is clear that the acts
complained of do not show that he
was engaged in the selling of the
| goods as a business. occupation or
vocation, and the defendant is entitled
to Judgment, and the mandate must
be,
Judgment for defendant.
Received Oct. 6. 1914.