
    Osborn v. Holmes.
    Under tlie provisions of the act of 1846, a person engaged in the sale of goods of his own manufacture, and who also sells articles of domestic manufacture to an amount less than one thousand dollars per annum, not manufactured by him or at his shop, is liable to the license duty.
    In error from the Common Pleas of Crawford.
    Case stated. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of hats and caps, and also sold articles of domestic ■manufactures to an amount less than $1,000 per annum; which articles were not manufactured by him or at his shop. Whether he was liable to pay for a license to sell such articles to an amount less than $1,000, was the question. If so, then judgment for plaintiff for $7.
    Church, P. J., gave judgment for plaintiff for $7.
    
      Pearson, for plaintiff in error,
    argued, that by the proviso of the act of 1841, no one whose sales did not exceed $1,000 per annum, was liable to the tax.
    
      J. 8. Piddle, contó.
    
      Oct. 9.
   Burnside, J.

After a careful examination of the several acts of Assembly, we are satisfied the learned judge is - correct in Ms views. We adopt Ms opinion, and

Affirm the judgment.  