Case Name: J. P. South v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-27
Citations: 72 Tex. Crim. 381
Docket Number: No. 2597
Parties: J. P. South v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 381–386

Head Matter:
J. P. South v. The State.
No. 2597.
Decided June 27, 1913.
Rehearing denied January 7, 1914.
1.—Occupation—Traveling Retail Peddler—Patent Medicine.
Article 130, Penal Code, defining the offense of unlawfully pursuing and following the occupation or calling of a traveling retail peddler of patent medicines without paying the license tax therefor, and the Revised Statutes relating thereto are constitutional. Following Needham v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 248, and other eases.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully pursuing the occupation of a traveling retail peddler of patent medicines without license, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error.
3. —Same—Complaint—Information.
Where the complaint and information charging defendant with unlawfully pursuing the occupation of a traveling retail peddler of patent medicines without paying the tax required by law, etc., followed the statute, the same was sufficient.
4. —Same—Constitutional Daw—Occupation Tax—Classification.
The Constitution expressly gives the Legislature power and authority to impose occupation taxes both upon natural persons and corporations, and recognizes that classes may he made for that purpose, and persons who travel around as peddlers may be differentiated from merchants who sell the same articles. Following Camp v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 229, and other eases.
5. —Same—Definition of Offense—Statutes Construed.
Under article 3, Penal Code, as it now stands, an offense is not required to he specially defined, but any act or commission may be made a penal offense without being specially defined, so that article 130, Penal Code, in connection with the Revised Civil Statutes prescribing what occupations may he taxed, etc., prescribes a penal offense and is constitutional. Following Ex parte Williams, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 262, and other eases.
6. —Same—Penalty— Commissioners Court.
The law is not void because the penalty in part may be fixed by the Commissioners Court levying a tax of one-half of that of the State for the use of the county. Following Fahey v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 146, and other eases.
7. —Same—Police Regulation—Revenue—Punishment for Debt.
The failure to pay an occupation tax and take out a license therefor is an offense, whether regarded for revenue or for revenue and police regulation, and is not a punishment for debt.
Appeal from the County Court of Taylor. Tried below before the Hon. E. M. Overshiner.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully pursuing the occupation of a traveling retail peddler of patent medicines, etc.; penalty, a fine of $150. The opinion states the case.
W. E. Ponder and P. N. Grisham, for appellant.
On question of unconstitutionality of Act: Pullman Palace Car Co. v. State, 64 Texas, 374; Poteet v. State, 53 S. W. Rep., 869; Ex parte Jones, 43 S. W. Rep., 513; Ex parte Overstreet, 46 S. W. Rep., 835; Ex parte Woods, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 575; 108 S. W. Rep., 1171.
On question of definition of offense: Queen Insurance Co. et al. v. State, 34 S. W. Rep., 397; State v. Foster, 31 Texas, 578; Ex parte Bergen, 14 Texas Crim. App., 53.
On question of void penalty: Jannin v. State, 51 S. W. Rep., 1136; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. McAffy, 84 S. W. Rep., 646.
On question that said tax is a revenue and not a regulation: Clegg v. State, 42 Texas, 605; Carr v. State, 34 L. R. A., 634; Rosenbloom v. State, 57 L. R. A., 922; State v. Green, 27 Neb., 64; Hoover v. Engles, 88 N. W. Rep., 869.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted under article 130, Penal Code, and article 7355 (5049), Revised Statutes of Texas, for unlawfully pursuing and following the occupation or calling of a traveling retail peddler of patent medicines, without paying the tax required by law and obtaining a license therefor, and fined $150.
Appellant attacks the law on which the prosecution was had and conviction secured as being unconstitutional. This court has so many times and in so many cases held the Act constitutional, that we deem it unnecessary to further discuss the questions or cite all the authorities, but see Needham v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 248; Huffman v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 145; Shed v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 10, 155 S. W. Rep., 524, and Branch's Criminal Law, section 693.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.