De Witt v. State

• Citation: 155 Wis. 249,144 N.W. 253
• Parties: DE WITT v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1913
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

155 Wis. 249

144 N.W. 253

DE WITT

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 9, 1913.

Writ of error to the circuit court for Shawano county, to review a conviction of plaintiff in error of the offense of conducting the business of peddling without a license contrary to the statute, section 1570, Stats. 1911, which provides that “No person shall engage in or follow the business or occupation of a hawker or peddler within this state without having first obtained a license for that purpose as provided in sections 1570 to 1584i, inclusive.” John Goodland, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.

The accused was in due form charged under section 1570, Stats. 1911. The proof was to the effect that, during the time and within the territory alleged, the accused travelled from place to place with horses and wagon and selling as he could from house to house such spices, medicines and other articles of merchandise as he carried. He obtained his stock under contract with a wholesaler who sold only by such methods. By the terms of the contract he was given the character of an exclusive agent for the seller within specified territory, but was in fact dealt with as a purchaser of the goods. He was required to pay for goods ordered substantially the same as in ordinary cases and depended for remuneration for his work upon selling such goods at an advance over the purchase price. He ordered the goods in quantities, stored them at his home, stocked his wagon there, and re-stocked it from time to time as needed. In due course he was found guilty as charged and judgment was rendered accordingly.Orlaf Anderson, of Wausau, for plaintiff in error.

Walter C. Owen, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. M. Andrews, of Shawano, for the State.

MARSHALL, J.

[1] Counsel for plaintiff in error urges several reasons why the conviction complained of is wrong. No one of them involves a new question. It is said that § 1570, Statutes, is unconstitutional; but this court has repeatedly passed upon similar legislation to the contrary. Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428, 20 Am. Rep. 12; Servonitz v. State, 133 Wis. 231, 113 N. W. 277, 126 Am. St. Rep. 955;Monroe v. Endelman, 150 Wis. 621, 138 N. W. 70.

[2] It is next said plaintiff in error, because of having a fixed place of abode in this state and place for accumulating merchandise from which to stock his wagon from time to time, was not a peddler within the meaning of the statute; and we are favored with several definitions of the term “peddler” to support that view. Such term has no very technical meaning. Its ordinary popular meaning was incorporated into the law. That is so well known, a resort to learned discussions in respect to it in legal opinions, or to its peculiar...