State v. Shapiro
| Decision Date | 27 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 37.,37. |
| Parties | STATE v. SHAPIRO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
131 Md. 168
STATE
v.
SHAPIRO.
No. 37.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
June 27, 1917.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Jacob S. Shapiro was indicted for dealing in junk without first having obtained a, license. From a judgment discharging defendant, after his demurrer to the indictment had been sustained, the State appeals. Reversed, with costs, and new trial awarded.
Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Philip B. Perlman, of Baltimore, and Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen. (William F. Broening, State's Atty., Lindsay C. Spencer, Asst. State's Atty., both of Baltimore, on the brief), for the State. Henry M. Siegel, of Baltimore (Siegel & Siegel, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
URNER, J. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with unlawfully dealing in junk in Baltimore City without first taking out a license therefor as required by law. The statute alleged to be violated is the Act of 1916 (chapter 704, § 172), which, under the caption, "Junk Dealers," provides as follows:
"Each person, firm or corporation dealing in junk within this state shall pay for the privilege of conducting such business by first taking out an annual license therefor, for each place of business and paying the following license fee, namely: In cities or counties of 50,000 inhabitants or over, each, per annum, $30.00: in cities or counties of 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, each, per annum, $20.00; in cities or counties of 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, each, per annum, $10.00; in Baltimore City, $250.00."
By a later section of the act a fine of $100 is directed to be imposed for the failure of one engaged in the business to procure the requisite license.
A demurrer to the indictment disputes the validity of the statute on the following grounds: (1) That it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, by attempting an exercise of taxing power which unjustly, arbitrarily, and unreasonably discriminates against the defendant and all others similarly engaged in business in Baltimore City and in favor of other persons located elsewhere in the state, and which deprives the defendant and others in like situation of their liberty, property, and business without due process of law, and denies them also the equal protection of the law. (2) That the act violates the Constitution of Maryland for the reasons just stated, and also because the license required to be obtained by the defendant for his business in Baltimore City is an arbitrary and unequal tax imposed contrary to the fifteenth article of the Bill of Rights, and is not a lawful exercise of the police power. (3) That the license fee attempted to be levied upon the defendant is an abuse of the police power of the state, in that it is manifestly in excess of any legitimate charge for supervision or regulation of the business in which the defendant is engaged. (4) That there is no definition of the term "junk dealer" in the act, and no fixed or certain popular meaning of the term, and hence the act is void for uncertainty.
The appeal is by the state, and is from a judgment discharging the defendant, after his demurrer to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial