City of St. Louis v. Cafferata

• Decision Date: 31 October 1856
• Citation: 24 Mo. 94
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant in Error, v. CAFFERATA, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

24 Mo. 94

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant in Error,

v.CAFFERATA, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1856.

1. The city of St. Louis was empowered by its charter of March 3d, 1851, to prohibit the keeping open of stores, shops, and other places of business on Sunday; those transgressing the provisions of the fourth section, of article 2, of the ordinance concerning misdemeanors (Rev. Ordinances, 1853, p. 514), are amenable to the penalties prescribed by said ordinance.

Error to St. Louis Criminal Court.

The charge against the defendant, Cafferata, was that he, “on Sunday, July 1st, 1855, and after the hour of nine o'clock in the forenoon of said day, did keep open his confectionery for business purposes, situate, etc., within the corporation limits of the city of St. Louis, contrary,” etc.

The fourth section, of article 2, of the ordinance concerning misdemeanors (Rev. Ord. 1853, p. 514), with the violation of which defendant was charged, is as follows: “Sec. 4. Whoever shall, in this city, play on Sunday at billiards, ten pins, or other game of amusement, or any game or amusement in any highway, thoroughfare, or other public place; or shall on that day sell or offer to sell any merchandise or fermented or distilled liquors or wines; or shall, after the hour of nine o'clock in the forenoon of that day, keep his store, shop or other place of business open, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Upon the trial in the St. Louis Criminal Court, to which court this cause was taken by appeal from the decision of the recorder, the jury were instructed as follows: “The defendant is charged with having committed a violation of the 4th section, of the second article, of the ordinance, entitled: ‘An ordinance concerning misdemeanors,’ which has been read in evidence. In passing upon this case, the jury have nothing to do with any statutory enactment of the Legislature of this state; nor is the policy or wisdom of the city council, in passing such an ordinance, a proper question for your consideration. The only question for your determination is, whether the defendant is guilty of the violation of said ordinance as charged; and if you find that defendant was the proprietor of a confectionery store situate in the city of St. Louis, as set out in the complaint; that the first day of July last was a Sunday; and that defendant kept open the said store on that day, after nine o'clock in the forenoon, for business purposes, contrary to the provisions of the said ordinance--then you ought to find him guilty as charged, and assess a fine against him agreeably to the provisions of the ordinance of said city, fixing the penalty at not less than three nor more than one hundred dollars. The city of St. Louis, by its charter, has the power to pass ordinances regulating the manner in which business places shall be kept on Sunday, and to prohibit them from being kept open on Sunday for business purposes, as charged; and this power may be exercised by the...