Case Name: SOUTH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-27
Citations: 162 S.W. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOUTH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 510–512

Head Matter:
SOUTH v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 27, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 7, 1914.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Constitutional Law (§ 208 ) — Class Legislation-Occupation Taxes — Validity.
Const, art. 8, §§ 1, 2, authorizing the imposition of occupation taxes, which must be equal and uniform on the same class, empowers the Legislature to establish such classes, and Rev. Civ. St. 1911, arts. 7355, 7357, imposing an occupation ■ tax on traveling vendors of patent medicines, is not invalid because exempting merchants and druggists selling patent medicines, for the classification is reasonable.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 649-677; Dec. Dig. § 208. ]
2. Hawkers and Peddlers (§ 7*) — Criminal Oeeenses — Statutory Provisions.
Under Pen. Code 1911, arts. 3, 6, providing that no person shall be punished for any act unless the same is made a penal offense and a penalty affixed by written law, and providing that the articles in the Penal Code, and other written law may be looked to, article 130, making one pursuing a taxable occupation, without first obtaining a license, liable to a fine not •less than the tax due, when read in connection with Rev. Civ. St. 1911, arts. 7355, 7357, imposing an occupation tax of $100 on traveling vendors of patent medicines, and providing that the commissioners’ court may levy for county revenue purposes, one-half of the state occupation tax on all occupations, prescribes a penal offense for pursuing the business of peddling patent medicines without first paying the occupation tax imposed by the statute and by the commissioners’ court.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Hawkers and Peddlers, Cent. Dig. §§ 16-19; Dec. Dig. § 7. ]
3. Licenses (§ 6*) — Criminal Oeeenses —
Statutory Provisions.
Rev. Civ. St. 1911, arts. 7355, 7357, imposing an occupation tax of $100 on traveling vendors of patent medicines, and authorizing the commissioners’ court to levy for county purposes one-half of the state occupation tax on all occupations not otherwise specially excepted, and Pen. Code 1911, art. 130, providing that one pursuing a taxable occupation, without first obtaining a license, shall be fined not less than the tax due and not more than double that sum, are not void on the ground that the penalty m part may be fixed by the commissioners’ court, levying a tax of one-half of that of the state for the county.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Licenses, Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 6, 19; Dee. Dig. § 6. ]
,4. Constitutional Law (§ 83*) — Improvement eor Debt — Prohibition—Violation.
• The failure to pay an occupation tax, whether imposed for revenue or for revenue and police regulation, may be made an offense, and .the punishment therefor is not for a debt with-ip the constitutional prohibition.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent.' Dig. §§ 150-151½ ; Dec. Dig. § 83.
• Appeal from Taylor County Court; E. M; Overshiner, Judge.
•J. P. South, was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
W. E. Ponder, of Mt. Pleasant, and R. N. Grisham, of Sweetwater, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted under article 130, P. C., 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 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 103 S. W. 857; Huffman v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 115 S. W. 578; Shed v. State, 155 S. W. 524; and Branch's Criminal Law, § 693.
The judgment is affirmed.