examining a licensing statute and concluding that a butcher is not a dealer because a butcher does not buy and sell the same article in the same condition
How later courts described this case
- examining a licensing statute and concluding that a butcher is not a dealer because a butcher does not buy and sell the same article in the same condition
- a tax dispute regarding whether a butcher who buys cattle is liable to be taxed as a “dealer”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Smith, C. J.
The defendant is charged with a violation! of sections 12 and 32, schedule B, of the act of March 14th,. 1879, entitled
“
an act to raise revenue,” in failing to take out license to practice the profession of a butcher, and the jury render a special verdict,'the material facts of which, are found as-follows :
The defendant between the first days of January and July of the year 1879 in the city of Raleigh carried on. the business of a butcher, and was engaged in buying oxen,, steers, cows; hogs and sheep, which he slaughtered, cut up- and sold in pieces to various purchasers at his stall, without-having any license or paying any tax therefor. Upon this finding the court adjudged the defendant not guilty and the-solicitor appealed.
In the recent case of
State
v.
Chadbourn,
80 N. C., 479 , we had occasion to examine and construe a similar provision, in the revenue act of March 10th, 1877. The defendants in
*562
that case were proprietors of a steam saw and planing mill, and their business was to buy timber, and by sawing and planing, convert it into lumber and boards which they sold in the market. It was held that their calling was not within the purview of the act and they were not liable to the tax. The occupation of ,a butcher who purchases live animals suitable for food, and, after slaughtering and cutting them, •sells in pieces at his stall, is not dissimilar. He does not buy and sell
the same article and in the same condition
as a mere
trader.
He buys a cow, a hog, or a sheep; he sells beef, pork or mutton. His labor and skill have been employed in making the change,-and enhance the price. The reasons •assigned for the exemption of the manufacturer of boards apply with equal force to the butcher. There is however .■some difference in the words used in the corresponding sections of ithe revenue laws. In plaee of the expression, “and •every other
-trader
who, as principal or agent, carries on the 'business of buying
or
selling goods, wares or merchandise,” ■used in the former act, the latter substitutes “ and every ■other
dealer
who shall buy
and
sell goods, wares or merchandise,’’and while, in the interpretation of the section, the ■opinion lays-stress upon the word trader, that substituted in ■its place, and of the same import, as defined by Worcester, and with the like associations, must be allowed the same force and effect. If the general assembly had intended to make the section more comprehensive, language more direct .and clear would have been employed to convey their meaning. On the contrary by coupling the two acts of
buying ■and selling,
as descriptive of the dealer to be taxed, instead of disjoining them, as before when applied to the
trader
in the act of 1877, it must be inferred that the purpose was to render the law more explicit, and in conformity with the construction put upon it. We must therefore adhere to our former decision and declare the butcher also exempt from 4hefax imposed in section 12 of schedule B.
No error. Affirmed.