
    The City Council of Charleston vs. Morris Goldsmith.
    
      Jimh Shop.
    
    On proof that defendant dealt largely in buying, keeping in his store houses, and shipping to the North for sale, old metals, old ropes, rags, and other odds and ends: — Held, that he was properly convicted of keeping a junk shop without license, contrary to a city ordinance.
    IN THE CITY COURT OF CHARLESTON, OCTOBER TERM, 1859.
    The report of his Honor, the Recorder, is as follows:
    ' “ This was an action brought under an Ordinance of the City Council, ratified 3d March, 1858. The ordinance provides, that the keeper or keepers of every shop within the limits 'of the city, where any kind of second-hand articles, junk, old metals, or other like commodities, are purchased, sold, bartered, or exchanged, shall obtain from the City Council a license to do so. The ordinance provides for the manner of obtaining the license, establishes certain regulations, to be observed by all persons keeping sucb shops, and imposes a penalty of not less than fifty dollars, or more than one hundred dollars, upon all persons who shall keep such shop, or carry on business therein, without having first obtained a license to do so.
    “Tbe first witness was Daniel Twobill, a policeman. He knew defendant’s place of business, on tbe north side of Vendue Range. Keeps a store containing old iron, rags, ropes, copper, &c., &c., and such other articles as are usually kept in a junk shop. In consequence of a complaint, witness went to examine all the junk shops. Went into defendant’s on the 23d April, 1859. Saw defendant’s son and another. Did not see any buying or selling. ■ Saw old rags, iron, brass, &c. Defendant’s name on the door. Can’t say if there was any platform-scales. Defendant’s is a very large establishment. Does not differ from any other junk shop, except in size. Some of the other junk shops are pretty large. Hennessey’s, in King street, is pretty large.
    "It was proved by an officer of council, that defendant had no license.
    “ Mr. Simons offered defendant’s invoice and receipt books, and the weighing book, kept by James Brown, public weigher.
    “ A. J. Moses, says, that defendant’s is a large establishment. Two stores. Three stories of two buildings. Ships largely. Bepacks cotton. Not a retail establishment. Defendant buys from junk shops who have paid for their licenses. Buys largely, old metals, rags, &c., in smaller quantities, and packs and ships them in large quantities.
    "I told the jury the ordinance was intended to regulate business of a certain character; that their inquiry was not about the character of the individual, but merely to -ascertain from the testimony, whether his business was of that nature which the City Council had thought proper should not be conducted without a license; that there was no direct proof of any buying or selling, but that they were to determine from what they had heard from the witnesses, whether the defendant was a keeper of a shop where second-hand articles, junk, old metals, and other like commodities were purchased, sold, bartered, or exchanged. At the request of the defendant’s attorney, I also said to the jury, that .if they thought, from the testimony, that the defendant’s course of business was to purchase the articles in which he dealt elsewhere, and merely used these stores as a place of deposit or warehouse, I was of the opinion that he was not the keeper of a shop within the language of the ordinance.
    
      “The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for fifty dollars.”
    The defendant appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the grounds:
    1. That the'only evidence adduced, was the testimony of the prosecutor,' Daniel Twohill.
    ■ 2. The testimony of Mr. A. J. Moses, on the part of the defence. ■
    8. The book of purchases.
    4. The public weigher’s book. •
    5. The book of sales.
    That these established, that the defendant had two adjoining three story buildings on Yendue Eange, for the storing of certain articles; that these articles were purchased by him of various persons, of the highest respectability, in large quantities, at auction and otherwise, weighed by the public weigher, transported to his warehouses, and there packed.in bales, and shipped to New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, and that he did not therefore carry on such a business as was obnoxious to the provisions of the Ordinance of the 3d March, 1858.
    2. Because, admitting all the evidence adduced to be true, the defendant was entitled thereby to a verdict.
    
      Thomas Y. Simons, for appellant.
    
      Porter, City-Attorney, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, C. J.

What is a junk shop ? It is a place where odds and ends are purchased or^sold.

The ordinance prohibits the purchase or sale of such things in a shop kept within the city without a license. It is perfectly immaterial whether it is a large or a small shop.

It seems, the defendant has a large house, and does a large and profitable business in these matters, which are often rated as of little value.

He buys and ships North; he buys from other shops, which, perhaps, would not be, as the recorder thought, within the ordinance. But, as appeared from his books, he bought in his large house from persons bringing there the articles, which make a junk shop.

The Becorder’s charge is not excepted to; the verdict of the jury is chállenged, as without evidence.

I think that there was evidence, to which I have alluded, on which the City was entitled to the verdict.

The motion is dismissed.

Johnston and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  