No. 11,070 Precedential Processed

State v. Dielenschneider

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed December 15, 1892 · 44 La. Ann. 1116

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., February 25, 1929 120 So. 519

Cited by

State v. Crescent City Laundries, Inc. 165 So. 315 La. 1936
State v. Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Co. 144 So. 714 La. 1932
State v. Chicago Hat Works 141 So. 844 La. 1932
State v. C. C. Hartwell Co. 41 So. 444 La. 1906

Opinion text

The opinion of the court was delivered by Fenner, J. The Constitution of the State exempts from license taxation persons “ engaged in mechanical pursuits.” Defendant is a barber, and the sole question is whether the trade of barber is a “mechanical pursuit,” within the meaning of the Constitution. We think it is. The labor of a barber is manual; his work is mechanical. Hair cutting is as much a mechanical pursuit as wood cutting. See on the subject: City vs. Lagman, 43 An. 1180; Tax Collector vs. OConnors, 42 An. 787; City vs. Bailey, 35 An. 545. Judgment affirmed.