Commonwealth v. Newhall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment, against Ira E. Newhall and James P. Campbell, for violating the provisions of St. 1890, c. 448, as amended by St. 1894, c. 525, relating to itinerant vendors.
Read the full summary
Indictment, against Ira E. Newhall and James P. Campbell, for violating the provisions of St. 1890, c. 448, as amended by St. 1894, c. 525, relating to itinerant vendors. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gaskill, J., the defendants asked the judge to rule that, upon all the facts and evidence in the case, the defendants could not be convicted on the indictment, they not being itinerant vendors within the meaning of St. 1890, c. 448, as amended by St. 1894, c. 525; and also because the defendants were in the employ of a foreign company, and had in their possession goods the property…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
By the statute definition, all persons “ who engage in a temporary or transient business in this State, either in one locality or in travelling from place to place selling goods, wares, and merchandise, and who for the purposes of carrying on such business hire, lease, or occupy any building or structure for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and merchandise,” are itinerant vendors. St. 1890, c. 448, § 1.
The defendants’ first contention is that they are not within this definition. They are part of a travelling troupe, which is composed of Indians, a comedian, and a physician, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brennan v. TitusvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Commonwealth v. CrowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Levy v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Commonwealth v. ReidMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900