City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz
Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 18770.,18770. |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. BASKOWITZ. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.
Sam Baskowitz was convicted of violating a city ordinance for licensing junk dealers, and appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant was arrested and prosecuted by the city of St. Louis for the violation of section 1605 of Ordinance No. 24751 of said city, providing for the licensing, regulation, and control of junk dealers in said city. From a judgment of conviction in the St. Louis court of criminal correction, the defendant duly appealed the cause to this court.
The section of the ordinance mentioned in so far as is here material reads:
Said motion to quash was overruled, and when the case came on for trial the appellant was duly arraigned, and pleaded "not guilty." At the beginning of the case appellant objected to the introduction of any evidence, and moved that he be discharged for the same reasons as set forth in his written motion to quash, and for the additional reasons:
"(1) That the part of the ordinance requiring a junk merchant to keep a registry book is an unreasonable regulation, and is prohibitive of the business described by the ordinance, and is in violation of the Constitution of this state and the United States; (2) that the ordinance requires a junk merchant to keep a book of registry, which is not required by the ordinance of a junk peddler; and (3) that the information filed in this case is insufficient, for the reason that the defendant, Sam Baskowitz, is designated therein as a junk dealer, whereas the information should charge that said Sam Baskowitz is either a junk peddler or junk merchant, and that as a junk merchant he is keeping an established place of business and is carrying on the business of a junk merchant at that particular place."
This oral motion was also by the court overruled, to which action of the court the appellant duly saved his exceptions.
The evidence showed that appellant had a place of business at 812 North Sixteenth street in said city; that the building in which he transacted business was a large one, with an office and store room; that appellant conducted both a new and a secondhand bottle business, the former being the larger, constituting 60 to 75 per cent. of the total business; that the secondhand stock "ran way up in the millions" of bottles, and that the appellant had a merchant's license to do business, but had no license authorizing him to carry on a junk merchant's business, nor did he keep a registry of the bottles purchased, as required by said ordinance.
Appellant offered to prove that it was an impossibility to register all the secondhand bottles' purchased by him, as required by said ordinance. That evidence was objected to, which was by the court sustained, and appellant duly excepted to the ruling of the court.
The court gave a number of instructions, which in effect told the jury that if they found the facts to be as before stated, then they would find the appellant guilty, etc., and, upon the other hand, that if they failed to so find the facts, then they would find him not guilty.
In addition to the instructions given by the court the appellant asked the court to give to the jury the five following instructions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shapiro v. United States
... ... Mr. Bernard Tomson, of New York City, for Petitioner ... Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., ... (2) St. Louis v. Baskowitz, 273 Mo. 543, 201 S.W. 870, where a municipal ordinance requiring junk dealers to keep ... ...
-
Turner v. Kansas City
... ... Sec. 1683, R.S. 1939; Sylvester Coal Co. v. St. Louis, 135 Mo. 323, 32 S.W. 649; Jewel Tea Co. v. Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 165 S.W. 743; Hayes v. Poplar Bluff, 173 S.W. 676; Glencoe Lime, etc., Co. v. St ... Consult Ex parte Williams (Div. II, 1940), 345 Mo. 1121, 1127[3], 139 S.W. 2d 485, 488[5-9]; City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz (Div. I, 1918), 273 Mo. 543, 565(III), 201 S.W. 870, 876(III); St. Louis Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis (Banc, 1911), 235 Mo. 99, 146, 149, 137 S.W ... ...
-
Campbell Baking Co. v. City of Harrisonville, Mo.
... ... 128, 52 S. W. 286, and see Kansas City v. Lorber, 64 Mo. App. 604. In the Siemens Case, the court traces the judicial history (St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; St. Louis v. Herthel, 88 Mo. 128; City of St. Louis v. Bowler, 94 Mo. 630, 7 S. W. 434) which led up to the enactment of ... Lorber, 64 Mo. App. 604, loc. cit. 607. In Viquesney v. Kansas City, 305 Mo. 488, 266 S. W. 700, and City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz, 273 Mo. 543, 201 S. W. 870, cases especially relied upon by respondents, this particular question was neither raised nor considered, and hence they ... ...
-
Edmonds v. St. Louis
... ... CITY OF ST. LOUIS ET AL ... No. 37391 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... Division Two, September 25, 1941 ... Rehearing Denied, October 25, ... Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600, 619(V), 31 S.W. 1045, 1050(5); St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 387, 447-8, 174 S.W. 78, 91; St. Louis v. Baskowitz, 273 Mo. 543, 561 (II), 575, 201 S.W. 870, 879(6).] If vending machine operators were classed as merchants, their tax would be based on the volume of ... ...