Thomas v. City of Hot Springs

34 Ark. 553
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 Ark. 553 (Thomas v. City of Hot Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. City of Hot Springs, 34 Ark. 553 (Ark. 1879).

Opinion

English, C. J.

On the twenty-third of May, 1879, Harry Thomas was arrested under a warrant issued by the police judge of the city of Hot Springs, on a charge of having committed the offense of drumming John "West to Hr. C. J. 'Weatherby, etc.

The defendant was tried before the police judge, convicted, and appealed to the circuit coui’tof Garland county, where the case was submitted to the court, by consent of parties, on the plea of not guilty. The court found defendant guilty upon the evidence, and fined him $10. He moved for a new trial, which the court refused, and he took a bill of exceptions, and appealed to this court.

On the trial, the following ordinance was read in evidence:

“ ordinance on drumming.

“City of Hot Springs, May 5, 1879.

“ Be it ordained by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the

City of Hot Springs, that:

“Whereas, The laws of the state for the incorporation, organization and government of municipal corporations, approved March 9, 1875, give power to the city council to license, regulate and suppress ordinaries, corn doctors, private and venereal hospitals, and to make and publish bylaws and ordinances which to them shall seem necessary to secure such corporations and their inhabitants against thieves and other persons violating the public peace, and to promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of such corporations and their inhabitants, against thieves and other persons violating the public peace, and to promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of such corporations and their inhabitants; and,

“Whereas, It is well known that persons who run, drum and solicit patronage for physicians and quacks, boardinghouses, bath-houses and gambling dens, cause great inconvenience to this resort, provoke disorder, and greatly injure the morals, comfort and business thereof;

“ Sec. 1. Therefore, be it ordained by the mayor and board of aldermen of the city of Hot Springs, that, any person who shall be found drumming, running, or soliciting strangers or visitors to this place for any hotel, boardinghouse, bath-bouse, physician, or pretended physician, quack, or vendor of nostrums — and any person who shall employ another for any such purpose, or shall in any way encourage or countenance such drumming, running or soliciting for any hotel or boarding-house he or she may control, or for any business, profession or vocation he or she may be engaged in, or for any purpose whatever in the limits of this city, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars nor more than tw.enty-five dollars.

“ See. 2. If any physician, or pretended physician, quack or vendor of nostrums, hotel or boarding-house keeper, or any other person, shall receive patients, boarders or customers at the hands, and upon the recommendation or reference of such persons as are recognized as drummers, he or she shall be deemed guilty of a violation of section one of this ordinance, and punished as therein provided.

“Sec. 3. Any person engaged in drumming, running, or soliciting strangers or visitors for any hotel, boarding-house, bath-house, physician or pretended physician of this city, by going back and forth from this city on the railroad train, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of section one, of this ordinance, and upon conviction shall be punished as herein provided.

“ Sec. 4. Every person engagedin drumming, running, or soliciting strangers or visitors, for any hotel, boardinghouse, bath-house, physician or pretended physician, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, an^d upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars; and every day such person continues so engaged drumming, running or soliciting, he shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this section, and for each repetition of the offense made punishable under this section, he shall be fined double the sum of the fine imposed at the former trial, until the same amounts to fifty dollars.

“ Sec. 5. Any person furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction of any person for a violation of this ordinance, and any police officer arresting such person at his own instance, shall receive one-half of the fine that may be collected out of the defendant upon conviction fox-violation of this ordinance.”

Section 6 repeals conflicting ordinances, etc., and puts this ordinance ixx force froxn its passage.

The parties consented to try the case on an agreed statement of facts, as follows:

“ That on the twenty-second day of May, 1879, in the city of Hot Springs, etc., defendant, Harry Thomas, by words of request and persuasion, solicited or -drummed John "West, a visitor to said city, etc., to employ Ur. C. J. Weatherby, a graduate of medicine and practicing physician in said city, etc.; and by such request and persuasion induced him to employ said Weatherby as his physician, and that defendant received therefor pay from said Weatherby; that he was then, and had been for some time, engaged in so soliciting for a firm of physicians, and that for procuring patients he is paid at the rate of five dollars per patient, and was so paid by said Weatherby, and that he has not and does not drum or solicit for any physician or physicians save such as are graduates, and skillful in their profession.”

The above being all the evidence, appellant moved the court to declare, as a proposition of law applicable in this case:

“That the solicitation of business and patronage is matter of common right, and that no municipal corporation can prohibit the same; and that the ordinance introduced in evidence in this case, and upon which this ease is based, is uimeasonable and void.”

But the court refused so to declare the law, and found appellant guilty, etc.

The twelfth section of the act of March 9, 1875, for the organization and government of municipal corporations {Acts of 1875, p. 8), empowers such corporations to license, regulate, tax or suppress a large number of occupations, exhibitions, amusements, etc., which are named, but drumming is not among them. Nor is there any provision of this act, or any other act, which authorizes such corporations to license or prohibit drumming.

A drummer is one who solicits custom.— Webster.

Drummers are, and have been for ages, a large and active class of commercial and business agents. They, it must be presumed, were as familiar to the law-makers as brokers, hawkers, peddlers, pawn-brokers, and others mentioned in the above act; and yet they are not named, nor has our legislature, by any act, thought proper — if it might do so in the exercise of the police power — to require drummers to obtain license from any source, or undertaken to make it a criminal offense to drum for any lawful business.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fuller Brush Co. v. Town of Green River
60 F.2d 613 (D. Wyoming, 1932)
Emerson v. McNeil
106 S.W. 479 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907)
Ex parte Ah Hoy
31 P. 220 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Ark. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-city-of-hot-springs-ark-1879.