People v. Moss

BISHOP, J.

The defendant-appellant was convicted on the charge that he “did engage in the business or engage in the capacity of a contractor ’ ’ without a license as required by

*Supp. 765

the Contractors’ License Law. (Act 1660, Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937.) Viewing the evidence most favorably to the conviction, it may be said to warrant the conclusion that the defendant bought materials, hired labor and enlisted the services of a superintendent, all to the end that a structure was built on property owned by the defendant. Inasmuch as we are of the opinion that an owner does not become a1 ‘ contractor” because he performs for himself services that, if done for another, would bring him within the purview of the statute, we find this evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction ■which led to the judgment appealed from.

To ascertain the meaning of the word “undertakes” as it appears in the statute’s definition of “contractor”, is the problem presented by this appeal. The word is susceptible of the meaning which the People would give it in support of their judgment: one may undertake a task by and for himself. This use of the word is embodied in one of the dictionary definitions: “To take upon oneself; to engage in; to enter upon; to take in hand; set about; attempt; as, to undertake a task, a journey.” But the word has also a definition which connotes an agreement with another person: “ ... to lay oneself under obligation, or to enter into stipulations, to perform or to execute; to covenant; contract”. Both definitions are found in Webster’s New International Dictionary, second edition.

As “contractor” was defined when the statute was adopted in 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 1591) and as amended in 1931, the use in which “undertakes” was employed was unambiguous. Quoting enough of section 3, as amended in 1931, to make clear our point, it provided: “A contractor within the meaning of this act is a person . . . who for . . . compensation, other than wages, undertakes or offers to undertake with another, or purports to have the capacity to undertake with another, to construct .•'. . any building . . . ” Beginning with an amendment in 1933 the word's “with another” háve been omitted, and the modern version is: “ A contractor within the meaning of this act is a person, . . . who in any capacity other than as the employee of another with wages as the sole compensation, undertakes or offers to undertake or purports to have the capacity to undertake or submits a bid, to construct . . . any building ...” It is our conclusion that the omission of the words “with another” has not changed the scope