Commonwealth v. Bergeron

• Decision Date: 30 November 1936
• Citation: 5 N.E.2d 31,296 Mass. 60
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BERGERON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

296 Mass. 60

5 N.E.2d 31

COMMONWEALTH

v.BERGERON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Nov. 30, 1936.

Report from Superior Court, Bristol County; Hobson, Judge.

Roland G. Bergeron was convicted by the Judge of the District Court for hawking and peddling without a license, and he appealed to the Superior Court, where the case was tried without a jury. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied, and he was found guilty. Defendant excepted to the denial of the motion, and the case was reported to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Order that defendant stand convicted.E. J. Harrington, Asst. Dist. Atty., of New Bedford, for the commonwealth.

G. Helford, of New Bedford, for defendant.

CROSBY, Justice.

A complaint issued by the Third District Court of Bristol on April 2, 1936, charged that the defendant, on the twenty-eighth day of March, 1936, ‘did unlawfully go from place to place in the city of New Bedford selling or bartering or carrying for sale or barter or exposing for sale or barter certain goods, wares and merchandise, he the said Roland G. Bergeron not having then and there any license, authority or appointment according to law to pursue the business of hawking and peddling.’ The trial judge found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10. On appeal to the Superior Court the defendant filed a waiver of trial by jury. The case was heard by a judge of a district court, sitting in the Superior Court, under St.1923, c. 469, as last amended by St.1935, c. 377, upon the following agreed statement of facts: ‘The defendant is engaged in the business of selling fuel and range oil in the City of New Bodford; carrying said oil in a vehicle; calling on householders who live in various parts of the City of New Bedford; that said householders have previously agreed with the said defendant that they will purchase their oil requirements from him, and at the time of the call the defendant ascertains the quantity of oil desired, which is then and there delivered, and payment therefor is then made or a bill is subsequentlyrendered.’ After this statement was read, counsel for the defendant presented a motion requesting the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant. This motion was denied, and the defendant was found guilty. He excepted to the denial of the motion. At the request of both parties the case was reported to this court with the stipulation that ‘if the verdict of guilty is warranted by law, the defendant shall stand convicted; if the verdict of guilty is not warranted by law, it shall be set aside and the defendant discharged.’

G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 101, § 13, provides: ‘Except as hereinafter expressly provided, the terms ‘hawker’ and ‘pedler’ as used in this chapter shall mean and include any person, either principal or agent, who goes from town to town or from place to place in the same town selling or bartering, or carrying for sale or...