Love v. State
| Decision Date | 21 January 1893 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 978 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | LOVE v. STATE. |
Appeal from Ellis county court; B. McDANIEL, Judge.
W. F. Love was convicted of pursuing the occupation of vending medicine without a license, and appeals. Reversed.
M. B. Templeton, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of pursuing the occupation of vending medicine without license, and fined in the sum of $262.50, from which he appealed to this court. Conceding the sufficiency of the indictment, and the correctness of the charge of the court, we do not think the evidence sufficient to support the charge. Appellant, as shown by the testimony, has been a colored Methodist preacher for 34 years, and for the past year or two was traveling with the colored Methodist conference as missionary in north Texas. While in the discharge of these clerical duties, for the purpose "of sorter paying expenses," he sometimes sold, at 50 cents per bottle, a mixture which he called "The Oil of Life," and claimed to be a remedy for rheumatism. He sold three bottles of this mixture in Ellis county, while performing his missionary duties. Appellant testified that he was not in the business of selling this oil, but that his occupation and profession was that of a missionary preacher. There is nothing in the record suggesting that his occupation was that of a mere cover or excuse to enable him to sell said medicine. "Occupation" means a vocation, trade, or business in which one principally engages to make a living or to obtain wealth. Stanford's Case, 16 Tex. App. 331. Appellant cannot be said to be "one who travels for the purpose of vending medicine," which is the occupation the law proposes to tax. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. All judges present and concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Country Club
...of an occupation tax, where the things constituting the business were done only occasionally; or as in the case of Love v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 20 S. W. 978, where the occupation tax was levied upon those "who travel for the purpose of vending medicine," and not upon selling medicine,......
-
Barnes v. State
...sale." See, also, Williams v. State, 23 Tex. App. 499, 5 S. W. 136; McReynolds v. State, 26 Tex. App. 374, 9 S. W. 617; Love v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 470, 20 S. W. 978. A question may be then asked, Why is it that at least two sales must be proven, in addition to proving one had engaged in ......
-
Hightower v. State
...principally engages in to procure a living, or obtain wealth." Article 10, P. C.; Standford v. State, 16 Tex. App. 331; Love v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 20 S. W. 978. So that in all cases tried under said article 589, as this case was, the lower courts should charge defining said terms of......
-
Cohen v. State
...one principally engages in to procure a living, or obtain wealth." This case was in terms approved by Judge Simkins in the case of Love v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 20 S. W. 978. A similar holding was made by this court in the case of Koenig v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 367, 26 S. W. 835, 47 A......