{
  "id": 8651124,
  "name": "STATE v. SAMUEL J. MORRELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morrell",
  "decision_date": "1888-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 N.C. 506"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 6080,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "d248e495f3f9a1b83968143f5af483684e5f39143a6dd5ba04768a7d03fa09aa",
    "simhash": "1:65c2356fc91c1b8b",
    "word_count": 1021
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:59:04.640355+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SAMUEL J. MORRELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.,\n(after stating the facts). The case presented in the verdict is clearly within the prohibitory words of the statute, from which we have quoted, since the manner of vending made him a peddler, and the article thus disposed of is-embraced in the statutory enumeration of those for which a license, preliminary to such peddling, is required by the law. This was conceded in the argument before us, and the \u2022controversy was, whether the mixture thus prepared and sold were goods of the defendant\u2019s own manufacture, in the sense of the exempting and concluding proviso.\nThe contention on behalf of the State is, that inasmuch as the article peddled was a \u201c nostrum, or medicine,\u201d and plainly the latter, after which, are enumerated \u201cgoods, wares and merchandise,\u201d the former constitute \u201ea distinct class, of which an unlicensed sale by peddling is forbidden, and when, in the process, the prohibition is removed from \u201c goods\u201d maufactured by the party himself, it has no application to the articles designated \u201cnostrums, or medicines,\u201d and as to these, the act remains in force, unaffected by the exception in the proviso.\nWhile there is force in the suggestion of such restricted operation in the proviso, and that the intention was to allow the sale of one\u2019s own manufactured or made goods, others than those denominated \u201cnostrums, or medicines,\u201d as to which a license in all cases is required, we are not prepared to accede to such a rigid interpretation to a statute so highly penal, and to say that the term goods, used for brevity, and comprehensive enough, in its general meaning, to embrace the preceding articles also, yet, we think, the mere admixture of the drugs constituting the \u201c Herbs of Life,\u201d the attractive and delusive name given to it, is not a process of manufacturing within the meaning of the exception. The mere fact, that the drugs were here mixed by the defendant, could \u25a0scarcely have been intended to place them beyond the contemplated taxation, while the same mixture done by others would be subject to the tax. The distinctions could hardly have been contemplated by the enacting General Assembly. The mixing of ingredients is not the conversion of them into a new article, of which the process of manufacturing can be reasonably predicated. The process meant, was such as a conversion of rags into paper, ginned cotton into yarn, or cloth, wood into articles of farm or domestic use, and the like. So that a new article is formed, and \u2022 this by the industry of man and expenditure of labor, which, by its increased value from labor thus bestowed, it was intended by the exemption to foster and favor.\nThus understood, the defendant cannot, by merely putting certain drugs together and boiling them, avail himself of the proviso and escape the tax.\nThere is error, and the judgment must be reversed, and upon the verdict, judgment entered against the defendant in the Court below.\nError. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and Mr. J. G. Buxton, for the State.",
      "Mr. R. B. Glenn, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SAMUEL J. MORRELL.\nTaxes \u2014 'Peddlers.\nThe proviso to sec. 23 of the Revenue Law of 1887 (chap. 135,) exempting persons who sell goods of their own manufacture from payment of the peddler\u2019s license tax, does not apply for the benefit of one who merely mixes and boils certain drugs and medicines together, and sells them under a deceptive name, as \u201cHerbs of Life.\u201d\nINDICTMENT for peddling without a license, tried before Gilmer, J., at October Term, 1887, of the Superior Court of Forsyth.\nThere was judgment on a special verdict for the defendant, and appeal by the State.\nThe defendant is charged with peddling without a license, in violation of the act of March 7th, 1887, entitled An Act to Raise Revenue; chap. 135, section 23, of which declares, \u201c that every person, a citizen of the United States, authorized to do business in this State, who, as principal or agent, peddles nostrums, medicines or goods, wares or merchandise, of whatever name or description, shall pay a license tax as follows\u201d \u2014 graduating the amount and prescribing how the license shall issue, &c. The concluding clause of the section is in these words: \u201c Provided, that this section shall not apply to persons who sell goods of their own manufacture within the State, printers soliciting orders, spirituous liquors excepted.\u201d\nSection 35 declares, \u201cthat every person, who shall practice any trade or profession, or use any franchise taxed by the laws of North Carolina, without having first paid the tax and obtained a license, as herein required, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished,\u201d &c.\nThe defendant, on his arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and at the trial the jury rendered the following special verdict :\nThe defendant carried on the business of selling medicines in this manner: He came to Winston, and, renting a house', engaged in the manufacture of medicine called the \u201c Herbs of Life.\u201d He bought from the resident druggists alcohol,, chloroform, tincture of capsicum, and other ingredients, and boiled them together, bottled the compound, and labelled it \u201c Herbs of Life.\u201d He then leased vacant lots in different parts of the town, and held open air concerts, with music, dancing and minstrel performance. At intervals he would address the crowd, and extract teeth, while venders of the medicine passed through the audience, with the medicine in baskets, selling the same. He followed this business for several nights, and having been applied to by the Sheriff of the County to pay a peddler\u2019s tax, and take out a peddler\u2019s license, he refused, whereupon was instituted the present proceeding (the issue of a warrant and his arrest, and being carried before an examining Justice)'. He paid no tax of any kind.\nThe jury say, that if, in the opinion of the Court, upon the foregoing, the defendant is in law guilty, the jury so say; otherwise, they say he is not guilty.\nThe Court being of the opinion that the defendant was not guilty, so adjudged, and directed him to be discharged; and from the judgment the State appealed.\nThe Attorney General and Mr. J. G. Buxton, for the State.\nMr. R. B. Glenn, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 533
}