State v. Shapleigh

• Citation: 27 Mo. 344
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. SHAPLEIGH et al., Appellants.^a1
• Decision Date: 31 October 1858
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

27 Mo. 344

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.SHAPLEIGH et al., Appellants.^a1

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1858.

1. So long as goods imported into one of the United States from a foreign country remain in the original unbroken package, the importer may sell the same, in that form, without first taking out a license from the state authorities; a state law requiring him first to take out a license would be in conflict with the constitution of the United States.

2. The act to tax and license merchants, approved December 11, 1855 (R. C. 1855, p. 1072), does not, when properly construed, require the importer of foreign goods to take out a license to authorize him to sell the same in the original packages.

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.

Gamble, Shepley and Hannegan, for appellants.

Mauro (circuit attorney), for the State.RICHARDSON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants were indicted for selling goods, as merchants, without license. The indictment contains but one count, which charges that the defendants, as partners, on the first day of July, 1856, and on divers other days and times, between that day and the day of finding the indictment, unlawfully did deal, as merchants, without license, at a place occupied by them in St. Louis, in selling hardware not the growth, produce or manufacture of this state, and not unmanufactured articles, the growth or produce of other states.

The defendants demurred to the indictment, but the demurrer was overruled, and they then pleaded not guilty, and under a provision of the Revised Statutes of 1855, p. 1189, the issue was tried by the court, with the consent of the attorney for the State and the defendants. The facts were agreed, and are as follows: “It is admitted by the defendants that during the time covered by this indictment, the defendants, as co-partners, were engaged in doing business as merchants, and that they did deal in the selling of goods, wares and merchandise at a store occupied by them for that purpose, at the county aforesaid, without a license therefor; and that, in their dealing as merchants aforesaid, they did sell goods, which were of the growth, produce and manufacture of foreign countries, imported by defendants into the United States, and on which they paid the duties to the United States, and which were sold by them in the original unbroken packages, as imported; and that they sold no other goods than as above specified, and that the goods were as described in the indictment.” There was no other evidence.

The defendants asked the court to declare the law to be “that if the defendants neither received for sale nor sold at their store in St. Louis any other goods except such as were imported by them into the United States from foreign countries, and on which they had paid the duties to the United States on their importation, and which were sold by them in the original unbroken packages, as imported, then the defendants are not guilty, and the court will so find.” But the court refused to give the instruction, and declared the law thus: “If defendants were co-partners, doing business as merchants, and during the time covered by the indictment did, at St. Louis county, deal in the selling of goods, wares and merchandise, as described in the indictment, the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country beyond the limits of the United States, at a store occupied by them for that purpose, without a license authorizing them to deal, they are guilty as charged in the indictment. For whether the merchandise sold by defendants was sold in the original or unbroken packages, and whether defendants themselves imported the goods into the United States and into this state from any foreign country without the limits of the United States, and paid the legal import duties of the United States charged upon the same, are immaterial questions in this prosecution.”

The defendants were found guilty, and have brought the case into this court by appeal.

All the legislation of the state that affects this case is contained in the act to tax and license merchants, approved December 11, 1855. The first section defines a merchant to be any person or co-partnership of persons who shall deal in the selling of goods, wares and merchandise, at any store, stand or place occupied for that purpose. The next section prohibits any person from dealing as a merchant, without a license first had and obtained according to the requirements of the act, under the penalty of forfeiting, for every offense, not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by indictment. By the third section merchants are required to pay an ad valorem tax, equal to that which is levied on real estate, upon all goods, wares and merchandise purchased by them, except such as may be the growth, produce or manufacture of this state, and except such unmanufactured articles as may be the growth or produce of other states. The fourth section prescribes that “any person or co-partnership of persons applying for a license to vend merchandise shall, before he or they shall receive such license, execute a bond to the state, with two or more good and sufficient securities, who shall be freeholders at the time, conditioned that he or they will, on or before the first day of November next following, pay to the collector of the proper county, the tax due upon such license.” It is made the duty (sec. 6) of every person, or co-partnership of persons, on the first day of November of each year, who shall have obtained a license, as provided in the previous section, to file in the office of the clerk of the County Court, in which the license may have been granted, a statement of the amount of all goods, wares and merchandise received for sale by him or them within the year then ending, excepting such as may be the growth, produce or manufacture of this state, and excepting such unmanufactured articles as may be the growth or produce of other states; and the seventh section requires that the statement shall be verified by affidavit.

It is...