{
  "id": 8653856,
  "name": "STATE v. E. N. S. LEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lee",
  "decision_date": "1893-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "683",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 N.C. 681"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 722",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651494
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0722-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 U. S., 676",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        4607
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/100/0676-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2966,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6172677488161036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9264047826726578
    },
    "sha256": "3dc5d43807deaaead5efc5411ef0c55f7bb011c1ee9e7f3866d1ae07c5f26317",
    "simhash": "1:0eb6281a07bb89fb",
    "word_count": 529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:11.999452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. E. N. S. LEE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nWhether the taxing of the occupation of selling \u201c clocks, stoves or ranges,\u201d by sample, under the state of facts found by the special verdict in this case, and whether to do so would be an interference with interstate commerce, is an interesting one. There are cases which would seem to indicate that the State could lawfully collect such tax upon the facts here found to exist, if the Legislature had seen fit to impose it. Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S., 676; State v. French, 109 N. C., 722. But we need not and do not pass upon that point.\nThe tax, for the failure to pay which the defendant is on trial, is that which is levied by section 28, ch. 294, Acts 1893, which provides, \u201cOn every itinerant person or company peddling clocks, stoves or ranges, fifty dollars annually on each wagon (if wagons are used) in each county where he or they may peddle. If wagons are not used, the tax shall be paid on each agent.\u201d The special verdict finds that the defendant sold the ranges by a sample range which he carried around in his wagon, and that he \u201cdid not sell any sample range.\u201d The tax is laid only on \u201c peddling,\u201d and the defendant did not peddle his ranges. The usual and ordinary significance of that word indicates the occupation of an itinerant vender of goods, who sells and delivers the identical goods he carries with him, and not the business of selling by sample and taking orders for goods to be thereafter delivered and to be paid for wholly, or in part, upon their subsequent delivery. Websier\u2019s International Dictionary defines \u201cpeddle \u2014 to sell from place to place; to retail by carrying around from customer to customer; to hawk. Hence, to retail in very small quantities.\u201d Also, \u201c to travel about with wares for sale; to go from place to place or from house to house for the purpose of retailing goods: as, to peddle without a license.\u201d Worcester defines it simply \u201cto carry about and sell; to retail as a peddler.\u201d To the same purport are the other dictionaries.\nAs the defendant did not \u201ccarry about and sell\u201d the ranges, but sold only by sample, he did not violate the statute by failure to pay the tax upon the business of \u201c peddling ranges.\u201d\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State (appellant).",
      "Mr. G. S. Ferguson, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. E. N. S. LEE.\nPeddler\u2014 Selling by Sample Without License.\n1. A \u201c peddler\u201d is one who sells and delivers the identical goods he carries about with him.\n2. One who sells ranges, etc., by sample and by taking orders for goods to be thereafter delivered and paid for, is not indictable for failure to pay the tax imposed upon the business of peddling ranges, etc., by section 28, ch. 294, Acts of 1898.\nCriminal ACTION, tried at Fall Term, 1893, of Yancky Superior Court, before Boykin, J., and a jury.\nThe jury returned a special verdict, upon which his Honor adjudged the defendant \u201c not guilty,\u201d and the State appealed.\nThe facts are stated in the opinion of Associate Justice Clark.\nThe Attorney General, for the State (appellant).\nMr. G. S. Ferguson, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 709,
  "last_page_order": 711
}