{
  "id": 1358504,
  "name": "Garner v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garner v. State",
  "decision_date": "1922-11-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "24",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 Ark. 24"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 462,
    "char_count": 11113,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.422,
    "sha256": "14ade70ebb5ea69d3513497fc6ebdf1a94f07aa90555d02167d86f0e3bd99369",
    "simhash": "1:32476d4d4a3649ef",
    "word_count": 1886
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:22.366486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Garner v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch C. J.\nAppellant was indicted and tried for violation of the statute (Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9833) which provides for the collection of \u201ca county tax * * * the sum of twenty-five dollars on each and every hawker or peddler by land or water for the privilege of hawking* and peddling- goods, wares and merchandise in any county in this State, for the term of six months or less.\u201d The trial court decided that appellant was guilty, under the undisputed evidence, and .directed the jury to fix his punishment at a fine of not less than two hundred dollars and not.more than five hundred dollars, and the jury fixed the minimum fine under that direction. The statute prescribing the punishment will be referred to later in this opinion.\nThere was a demurrer to the indictment, which the court overruled, and it is contended that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, likewise in directing a verdict of guilty and in prescribing the amount of the punishment.\nThe contention of appellant involves the construction of the whole of our statutes providing- for licenses for the privilege of hawking and peddling. The basis of the law on this subject begins with the general revenue act of March 31, 1883 (Acts of 1883, p. 518), and the above quotation is one of the subdivisions of section 6 of that act. Section 4 of the same statute (Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9794) provided for a State tax of twenty-five dollars \u201con each and every hawker or peddler, whether by land or water, for the privilege of hawking and- peddling goods, wares and merchandise. * * *\u201d The same statute provided for a tax on the privilege of peddling-clocks, lightning-rods, stove ranges and sewing machines. This statute did not define the term \u201chawker or peddler\u201d further than as expressed in the sections quoted above, but a section -of the Revised Statutes defined the term as those who \u201cshall deal in the selling of goods, wares or merchandise other than the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, by going from place to place, either by land or water, to sell the same.\u2019 Gantt\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 4376.\nThe Legislature of 1885 enacted a statute repealing \u00a7 4376, Gantt\u2019s Digest, and defining the term \u201chawking and peddling\u201d as follows:\n\u201cWhoever shall engage in the business of \u2022selling-goods, wares or merchandise of any description, other than articles grown, produced or manufactured by the seller himself, or by those in his employ, by going from house to house, or place to place, either by land or water, to -sell the same, is declared to be a peddler or hawker.\u201d Acts 1885, p. 68; Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9793.\nThe definition prescribed by this statute was, of course, applicable to the provisions for license tax for both State and county purposes. It will be observed that the statute last quoted exempted from the operation of the license tax the business of selling \u201carticles grown, produced or manufactured by the seller himself or by those in his employ.\u201d\nThe Legislature of 3893 enacted another statute in substance defining \u201cfarm and produce peddlers\u201d and exempting them from the payment of the license tax. That statute reads as follows:\n\u201cWhoever shall be engaged in the business of selling goods, wares or merchandise of any description -other than articles grown, produced or manufactured by such seller himself, or those for whom he is employed, and who shall take in exchange therefor eggs, chickens, hides, peltry, furs, fruits, vegetables or other articles usually grown, produced or manufactured on farms, shall be known and styled \u2018farm and produce sellers,\u2019 and shall be entitled'to carry on such business in this State without any tax or license therefor, and may give and receive money in carrying on said business when necessary or when change cannot otherwise be made.\u201d Acts, of 1893, p. 164; Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9841.\nThe act of 3893, supra, was an amendment to the act of 3893. (p. 127), -and there was a misprint of the statute in the publication thereof by placing the word \u201cfor\u201d between the word \u201cor\u201d and the word \u201cthose\u201d in the seventh line of the printed Acts of 1893.\nIt was conceded in the trial below that appellant, in addition to exchanging merchandise for farm products, also sold for cash, or, as he expressed it, \u201csometimes received money in exchange for goods,\u201d but it is contended that, for the reason that he was carrying on the business of exchanging merchandise for farm products, he came within the statutory definition of a \u201cfarm and produce peddler\u201d and was exempt from the payment .of tax, even though he occasionally sold for cash. It is contended by the Attorney General,, on the other hand, that. the act of 1893, supra, only operates as an exemption from the payment of the State tax, and that it does not afford, exemption from the payment of county tax.\nWe do not think that either of these contentions is sound. This statute is not confined in its terms to the subject of taxation for State purposes, and whatever exemption is contained therein operates as against the imposition of a county tax as well as a State tax. It is an independent statute defining certain peddlers who are to be exempt from the payment of a license tax, and, as before stated, it is not limited in its operations so far as it concerns the character of the tax, whether for State purposes or county purposes. The exemption, in other words, applies as well to one character of tax as to the other.\nThe contention of appellant -is unsound for the reason that the exemption relates to the business of exchanging merchandise for farm products, etc., as mentioned in the statute, and does .not permit the sale of goods by peddlers without payment of the tax. It is true that the statute expressly provides that one carrying on the business as a farm and produce peddler \u201cmay give and receive money in carrying on said business when necessary, or when change cannot otherwise be made.\u201d This language is not broad enough to manifest an intention to permit a peddler of the class named to sell his merchandise for cash merely because he could not exchange it. The word \u201cnecessary\u201d used in the statute relates to the exchange of goods, and only authorizes the receipt of money in consummating an exchange, .such as making change of money where the prices of the commodities exchanged do not coincide precisely. The act of 1893, supra, is somewhat peculiar in its terms in excluding from its operation the exchange of \u201c'articles grown, purchased or manufactured by such seller himself or those for whom he is-employed,\u201d but we do not find it necessary to discuss that feature of the statute, for the reason that, according to the undisputed evidence in this case, appellant was selling merchandise as well as exchanging it, and his business, for that reason, did not fall within the definition of farm and produce peddling.\n'Construing the statute in this way, the indictment properly charged an offense, and the court was.correct in overruling the demurrer, and was also correct in directing a verdict of guilt, the only punishment prescribed for the offense being the imposition of a fine.\nThis brings us to a discussion of the amount of the fine, and the Attorney General concedes that the court was in error in prescribing the amount of the punishment.\nThe statute imposing a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars (Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9835) applies only to the offense of failing to pay the license tax for peddling lightning-rods, steel stove ranges, clocks, pumps, buggies, carriages, or other vehicles. It does not prescribe a penalty for failing to pay the ordinary peddling license.\nCrawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9798, which was a subdivision of \u00a7 4 of the act of 1883, supra, prescribes the penalty for violation of the statute requiring the payment of State and county license tax for peddling. This statute reads as follows:\n\u201cAny person- who shall engage in the business of hawking or peddling, or in peddling clocks, or as agent for the sale of sewing \u25a0machines, stoves, ranges, or lightning-rods, without having paid the tax as provided in this act for said privilege, shall be guilty -of -a misdemeanor, and upon conviction'sh all be fined in double the amount of license he would be by the provisions of this act chargeable with.\u201d\nIt is the only section in the act of'1883, supra, prescribing a penalty for failing to pay a license tax, and it necessarily applied to the tax for county ns -well as State purposes. According to that statute, the fine could only be for double the amount of the license, and the court should only have imposed a fine of fifty dollars, which is double the amount of the county tax which appellant is charged with failing to pay.\nThe judgment is therefore modified so as to reduce the punishment to a fine in that sum. It is- so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "8teel, Johnson & 8haver, for appellant.",
      "J. 8. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and TTm. T. TTammoeh, Assistants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Garner v. State.\nOpinion delivered November 27, 1922.\n1. Hawkers and peddlers \u2014 statutory definition.' \u2014 The definition of hawkers and peddlers in Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 9793, is applicable both to the county tax imposed by \u00a7 9833, Id., and to the State tax imposed by \u00a7 9794, Id.\n2. Hawkers and peddlers \u2014 farm and produce sellers. \u2014 Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 9841, providing that those engaged in the exchange of goods, wares, and merchandise for eggs, chickens, etc., may carry on such business without a license, exempts such persons from both the State and the county license.\n3. Hawkers and peddlers \u2014 right of farm and produce sellers to make change. \u2014 Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 9841, providing that \u201cfarm and produce sellers\u201d are exempt from requirement of license where exchanging goods for eggs, chickens, etc., hut allowing' the giving and receiving of money \u201cin carrying on said business when necessary or when change cannot otherwise be made,\u201d authorizing the making of money change only when the prices of commodities exchanged do not precisely coincide, but does not authorize a peddler without license to sell his merchandise for cash merely because he cannot exchange it.\n4. Criminal law \u2014 direction of verdict of guilty. \u2014 Where, in a prosecution of a misdemeanor the punishment for which was a fine only, the evidence of guilt was undisputed, the court properly directed a verdict of guilty with instructions to the jury to fix the amount of the fine.\n5. Hawkers and peddlers \u2014 penalty for failure to pay license tax. \u2014 Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig-., \u00a7 9798, prescribing a penalty for failure of hawkers or peddlers to pay a license tax, applies to the tax required of peddlers of clocks, sewing machines, lightning rods, steel stove ranges, pumps, buggies, etc., but not to peddlers of ordinary merchandise.\nfi. Hawkers and peddlers \u2014 penalty for failure to pay license tax. \u2014 Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig'., \u00a7 9835, prescribing a fine for failure to pay peddler\u2019s license tax, applies to the failure to pay both the county and the State tax.\nAppeal from Little 'River Circuit Court; James 8. 81 eel. Judge;\njudgment modified.\n8teel, Johnson & 8haver, for appellant.\nJ. 8. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and TTm. T. TTammoeh, Assistants."
  },
  "file_name": "0024-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 56
}