Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-07

State of Maine VS.. John G. Littlefield.
Rescript, Haley, J.
This is a complaint and warrant
against the defendant for conducting
business as an itinerant vendor in the
town of Wells in the County of York,
by selling from a car, at retail. goods,
wares and merchandise without hav-
ing procured the licenses required by
chapter As of the Revised Statutes, and
is before this court upon report.
Section l of said chapter reads as
follows:
Every itinerant vendor who shall
sell or expose for sale, at public or pri-
waite sale, any goods, wares and mer-
chandise without state or local licenses
therefor, issued as hereinafter provid-
ed, shall be punished for each offense.''
Section Is Of the same chapter de-
fines the words "itinerant vendor" as
follows:
THE words itinerant vendors for
the purposes of this chapter shall be
construed to mean and include all per-
sons, both principals and agents, who
engage in a. temporary or transient
business in this State, either in one To-
cality or in travelling from place to
place selling goods. wares and mer-
chandise, and who. for the purpose of
carrying on such business. hire, lease
or occupy any building or structure
for the exhibition and sale of such
goods, wares and merchandise, or who
sell goods, wares and merchandise. al
retail from car, steamer or vessel.
The facts are undisputed. The de-
PENDANT, at the time complained of
was a citizen of Wells, an adjoining
town to the town of York, in the
County of York, and was and had
been for a number of years, in the
grocery business at said Wells and as
part of that business sold at retail and
at wholesale flour, grain sugar and
feed. For a number of years prior to
1913 he had been selling -four, sugar
and feed in carload lots to Mr.. Plaisted
a merchant of York, but in the spring
of 1918, Mr.. Plaisted gave up the
handling of these goods, and about six
weeks prior to April first the defend
ant went to York and solicited and
took orders from residents of that town
for grain flour, sugar and feed, in
quantities to load a freight ear, with
the understanding that defendant was
to send the orders out of the State &c
be filled. The defendant sent the ord
ers out of the State for goods enough
! to fill the orders taken in York and
other places and for his business al
! Wells, three or four carloads in all
The goods arrived at Kennebunk or
the tracks of the Boston and Maine
Railroad, and the defendant sorted out
/ of the goods those to I'LL the orders
taken in York. placed them all in one
car and forwarded them to York Vii
lage, some twelve to fifteen miles dis
tant, by the Atlantic Shore Line Rail
, way. The goods arrived at York Vii
lage on April third. and the defendant
delivered from the car to the parties
/ in York the goods ordered by them
and was paid the price agreed upon
the bills varying from fifty to one
hundred and seventy dollars for eacf
party. except that. as the goods did moi
arrive in York as early as expected
some Of the parties who had given ord
ers did not call for the goods, an6
those goods the defendant sold from
the car. selling to one Ralph Merrill
! two 10 ID. bags of sugar, to Gilbert n
Martin two 100 Id. bags of sugar ant
one barrel OF flour and two or three
bags of grain. and to Charles Blake
one 100 Id. bag of sugar
The State claims a conviction fol
two reasons
! First,-The delivery from the freight
car by the defendant of the goods ord
cred by the parties who received them
they having been ordered to be ship
ped from another state, and having
been so shipped and delivered by the
defendant.
Second,-The sale and delivery t
the three persons above named, VIII,
purchased the goods ordered by partie:
who did not call for them.
First: The acts of the defendant II
soliciting orders for the goods, and de
livering them from the car to TIL,
parties ordering them was not unlaw
full. The facts upon this branch of TIL,
case are practically the same as II
Stewart VS.. Michigan. decided by tn,