{
  "id": 1478767,
  "name": "Town of Newark v. Edwards",
  "name_abbreviation": "Town of Newark v. Edwards",
  "decision_date": "1945-03-05",
  "docket_number": "4379",
  "first_page": "276",
  "last_page": "279",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ark. 276"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "185 S.W.2d 925"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "204 Ark. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1444159
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/204/0745-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 5116,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05536114267665798
    },
    "sha256": "8134b422b145ceb0e6bbca5d238bfd255f80767df7ac427034849992f9680ea8",
    "simhash": "1:ce72d0768e376db2",
    "word_count": 869
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:02:19.909104+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Town of Newark v. Edwards."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nAn ordinance of tbe Town of Newark, enacted in 1919, provides: \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to engage in tbe exercise of, or pursue any of tbe following avocations or businesses within the town of Newark, Arkansas, without having-first paid the tax hereinafter required and obtained a license therefor. \u2019 \u2019 Then follows a large number of designated businesses, including- a \u201cgeneral store,\u201d on which the tax is $6 per quarter, \u201cmeat market or butcher shop,\u201d $10 per quarter, and \"for each \u201chardware store,\u201d $6 per quarter.\nAppellee, J. G-. Edwards, paid the tax of $6 per quarter for operating a \u201cgeneral store,\u201d but refused to pay the designated tax on a \u201chardware store\u201d and a \u201cmeat market or butcher shop, \u2019 \u2019 which he was operating. Two fines of $5 each, the minimum penalty under the ordinance, were assessed against appellee in the mayor\u2019s court for his refusal to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the court (,the jury having been waived) adjudged him \u201cnot guilty\u201d on either charge and accordingly discharged him. The Town of Newark brings this appeal.\nAppellee says: \u2018 \u2018 The defense interposed by appellee is that he is not engaged in either of those businesses in the sense comprehended by the ordinance in question, but is engaged in the operation of a \u2018general store\u2019 and having paid the occupation tax on that business he is not liable for the additional taxes sought to be levied and collected by the Town of Newark. This appeal does not involve the question of whether the Town of Newark has the authority to levy occupation taxes; that power is conceded by appellee. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 9728, and Act No. 322 of 1907. The issue here involved is whether appellee, after having paid the tax levied against a \u2018 general store, \u2019 can be required to pay an additional tax on a \u2018hardware store\u2019 and a \u2018meat market.\u2019 \u201d\nThe facts are that appellee, Edwards, after operating a general store in one building in Newark for approximately twenty years, about four years ago acquired an adjoining building, separated from his general store by a \u201cfire wall,\u201d and began operating a hardware store in this newly acquired building. About two years ago, he installed a meat market, or butcher shop, in the rear of his general store building, in which is housed his stock of groceries and general merchandise, and has since operated this meat market in connection with and as a part of his old general store. Appellee is sole owner of these three business enterprises. His employes, or clerks, work in either of the two store buildings, wherever they are needed. Under these facts, the trial court found that \u2018 \u2018 the defendant was operating a general store and one tax covers it. It is all operated under one individual and with the same employees, and he just carried different items in a \u2018 general store. \u2019 \u2019 \u2019 The court then declared defendant \u201cnot guilty.\u201d We think the court erred in so holding.\nThe ordinance in question here is clearly a revenue measure, imposing an occupation tax on various businesses for the purpose of raising revenue. Talley v. City of Blytheville, 204 Ark. 745, 164 S. W. 2d 900. No attempt at regulation of the various businesses is made. Authority for its enactment is conceded under \u00a7 9728 of Pope\u2019s Digest. Here, appellant has classified its merchants, or various business enterprises, for the purpose of taxation. We think it clear on the facts presented that when appellee acquired a building separate and apart from the one in which he was operating a general store and installed in this new building a stock of hardware and began the operation of this hardware store, he thereby took on a new business or occupation and became subject to the tax of $6 per quarter for conducting this hardware store.\nSince the meat market is owned and operated by appellee in the rear of the building, in which he operated his general store, we hold that it became a part of appellee\u2019s business, or \u201cgeneral store\u201d operations, and as such, only one tax should be imposed on, and exacted of, appellee in connection with the operation of this general store. We think, however, in the circumstances here, where two or more businesses, with different classifications for taxing purposes under the ordinance, are being-operated by the same owner, in the same building- as a general store, that the Town of Newark must collect from appellee the highest tax imposed on any one of the businesses embraced within appellee\u2019s general store, that it must impose and collect when such, business is operated separately. In the present case, the occupation tax on a \u201cmeat market or butcher shop\u201d when operated separately being $10 per quarter, and that on a \u201cgeneral store\u201d being only $6 per quarter, appellee must pay the higher tax, or $10 per quarter.\nFor the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment consistent with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Thompson, for appellant.",
      "Chas. F. Cole, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Town of Newark v. Edwards.\n4379\n185 S. W. 2d 925\nOpinion delivered March 5, 1945.\nW. M. Thompson, for appellant.\nChas. F. Cole, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0276-01",
  "first_page_order": 294,
  "last_page_order": 297
}