Under the facts as disclosed by the record, it appears that the plaintiff in error was a “traveling salesman” within the meaning of theiact approved December 14, 1896 (Acts 1896, p. 36); and this case, therefore, falls within the principle ruled by this court in Kimmel v. Americus, 105 Ga. 694. It follows that the conviction was contrary to law, and that the court erred in not sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.