{
  "id": 8722324,
  "name": "Fort Smith v. Bruce",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fort Smith v. Bruce",
  "decision_date": "1932-10-31",
  "docket_number": "Crim. 3822",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ark. 423"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 5304,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3670204324653677
    },
    "sha256": "a6f3228d5631d2d5284ac3b106294a40359a0c4f3e98ad43d474330f6ececf1f",
    "simhash": "1:f2eb34482a88f52f",
    "word_count": 898
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:47.259153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fort Smith v. Bruce."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellee was convicted in the municipal court of Fort Smith for failing to pay an occupation tax provided by ordinance and appealed to the circuit court, where the cause was submitted to the court, sitting as a jury, upon the following agreed statement of facts:\n\u201cIt is agreed that the defendant, W. H. Bruce, is conducting a plumbing business, and would, if not exempted by the facts and law hereinafter set up, be subject to pay a privilege tax under the ordinances of the city of Fort Smith.\n\u201cThe defendant pleads as a defense that he, being a resident of the Fort Smith District of Sebastian County, has been granted a certificate by the county judge certifying that he is entitled to the privileges and exemptions provided by Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 9842, which certificate is 'attached hereto and made a part of this statement of facts, and plaintiff admits the genuineness of said certificate, and the same is unrevoked.\n\u201cIt is admitted that defendant is an ex-United States soldier of the World War, and has a certificate of disability showing him to be a disabled soldier, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part of this statement.\n\u201cIt is admitted that defendant is drawing compensation under the provisions of the laws of the United States relating to veterans of the World War in the sum of $50 per month, and is a married man with a wife and two children, and has no property or business except the plumbing business from which to provide a living for himself and family.\n\u201cThe certificate of disability issued by the United States Veteran\u2019s Bureau states, \u2018That because of defendant\u2019s disability, asthma bronchial, severe with emphysema, right, which was caused by military service, his rating of permanent partial 50 per cent, will be continued. \u2019\n\u2018 \u2018 The certificate of the county judge is as follows:\n\u201cTo Whom It May Concern:\n\u201cThe bearer of this permit, Wallace H. Bruce, Jr., is a regularly discharged member of the United States Marine Corps, and, under \u00a7 9842 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest of the laws of Arkansas, is entitled to engage in what is known as \u2018hawking and peddling,\u2019 as is prescribed by this section.\n\u201cTherefore, the said Wallace H. Bruce, Jr., is on this day given a permit to engage in any 'business not in violation of said section, without paying a license therefor.\n\u201cJuly 2, 1931.\n(Signed) \u201cS. A. Lynch,\n\u2018 \u2018 County Judge, Sebastian County, Arkansas. \u2019 \u2019\nThe circuit court found that appellee was not drawing a pension within the meaning of said section of the Digest, but was drawing compensation, and was exempt from the payment of the tax under \u00a7 9842 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, and returned a judgment of acquittal, from which is this appeal.\nThe decisive question presented by this appeal is whether appellee is receiving a monthly pension of more than $8 within the meaning of \u00a7 9842 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest. That section exempts an ex-United States soldier, as well as certain others, from paying privilege or occupation taxes who do not draw a pension in excess of $8 per month. There is nothing in the context of the section indicating that the word \u201cpension\u201d was used in any other than its ordinary sense or meaning.\n\u201cPension\u201d is defined in Webster\u2019s International Dictionary as \u201ca stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past services or of the-surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service; esp., a regular .stipend paid by a government to retired public officers, disabled soldiers,\u201d etc.\n\u201cPension\u201d is defined in Black\u2019s Law Dictionary as \u201ca stated allowance out of the public treasury granted by the government to an individual or to his representatives for his valuable services to his country or in compensation for loss or damage sustained by him in the public service.\u201d\nThe agreed statement of facts reflects that appellant is receiving $50 per month, or more than $8 per month, from the United States Government on account of disabilities caused by his military service; so, the amount received by him is a pension within the definitions quoted above, and in the sense the word \u201cpension\u201d was used in the statute. The trial court erred in ruling that the monthly stipend received by appellee was compensation and not a pension. The stipend was not founded in contract and cannot therefore be regarded as compensation, but was a gratuity or bounty allowed him on account of disabilities received in military service.\nAppellee also insists that the certificate issued to him by the county judge of .Sebastian County conclusively shows that he is exempt from the payment of the license fee - imposed by the ordinance. The certificate of the county judge was made pursuant to the provisions of \u00a7 9842 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, which states that the certificate shall \u201cbe sufficient proof of the indigency or disability, and- of the service of said soldier or sailor in the Confederate, or United States Army or Navy.\u201d The certificate does not state the amount of pension the applicant draws, so could not be conclusive proof that he comes within the exemption.\nOn account of the error indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Geo. W. Dodd, for appellant.",
      "A. M. Dobbs, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fort Smith v. Bruce.\nCrim. 3822\nOpinion delivered October 31, 1932.\nGeo. W. Dodd, for appellant.\nA. M. Dobbs, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 443,
  "last_page_order": 446
}