Show 11UINO 1IUSINESS VIITIIOIT LICrS1 0 mr Iroilirll tlm Ticket llrokrr Ail Jo gel Gnll toy Judge orl Judge Norrell rendered a decision today to-day In the case on appeal of Salt Luke City against Oscar Iroehell finding find-ing the defendant guilty ot doing business busi-ness an a mil load ticket broker with out 1 Icn as charge In the com pialnV Defendant will be sentenced Saturday nrhell n tried In the police court found < guilty and lined 110 from which he Appealed The case was heard be fore Judge Norrell on Saturday lint The main defense of aieishell was that In taxing him as a ticket broker I the city was attempting lo tax Interstate Inter-state commerce He further claimed that his business was thai of transporting In I this porting passengers team point Suite to points In I other states that he Wa lot th agent of any railroad railroad cars nor any description ot conveyance says Commenting on the paInt the court I 11A transportation comvonl of any kind make Its prolitsnot > from speculating spec-ulating In tickets but from the differ elect between ihat It actually toils I tu carry a ppsenger and the sum It receive re-ceive for the transportation of the passenger It could do thin without tickets but the stuck In trail of the defendant Is I ticketsand without tickets his cxcupullon or buelnesx would be oisholly gone I Is I the tickets them Ives upon which ho makoti hs prom and on which he does his business and not upon any kind or description ot transpottatlon or means of tl1npart tlon Both the defendant when he Sells and the purchaser when he buys the ticket know that there Is I n sys tm or trnllrtllnn no railroad line and no other tangible man of conveyance con-veyance that I bound to honor the tlckel I anti transport the holder of I oJtH Intended de Unallan The analog Attempted to be mal between this came of the defendant n that of un express company falls of a parallel The express company IctuI y and truly transports and delivers the goods la or articles to the place of destination I It has no co n as Argued by counsel It rents them hires them or pay the railroad cash for tho use of them In I I other words for a consideration I ue the railroad compnnys road arid trln compnya to do Its business and the railroad company beam liable to the e apr company for nancamplallco lh the term of the contract Not so with the defendant he he no menn ol trans l wrtatlon himself and he does not employ em-ploy any arid knol too aa shown by tile testimony that If the railroad com In knoa that the ticket has bcn old by him It wll take up and fail c1 he some and either compel the holder trainTho to pay his rare or eject hIm trm Its The defendant to I mistaken when he says he Is I a transportation con pony he line not the Hist clement of a transportation company so far an hon by the testimony lie may sell el the tickets of transportation companies but If he does so without their author ity and not as their agent thin does not constitute him 1 transportation company nor make him a metier of Interstate commerce and the defense can not Avail him e The court then finds the defendant cullty as charged Th r was made a test case a number of others halng been arrested for via 1tion of the same ordinance |