Commonwealth v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 331
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. (three cases).
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

29 S.W. 331

COMMONWEALTH v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. (three cases).

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 19, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Three actions by the commonwealth of Kentucky against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to recover the statutory penalty for doing work and business on the Sabbath day. There was judgment in each case sustaining a demurrer to the petition, and plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

W. J Hendrick, W. H. Sweeney, and H. W. Rives, for the Commonwealth.

W. C McChord and H. W. Bruce, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

These three actions involve the same questions; hence were heard together. These actions were instituted by the commonwealth's and county attorney in the Washington circuit court against the appellee, the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company, to recover a penalty prescribed by section 10, art. 17, c. 29, of the General Statutes of 1883, which provides that no work or business shall be done on the Sabbath day except the ordinary household offices or other work of necessity or charity. Any person, on the Sabbath day, who shall himself be found at his or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices or other persons in labor or business, whether the same be for profit or amusement, unless such as permitted above, shall be fined not less than two nor more than fifty dollars for each offense. Every person or apprentice so employed shall be deemed a separate offense. On the 6th of October, 1893, and on the 21st of September, 1893, the appellant filed these petitions in the Washington circuit court, charging and averring that appellee had violated the statute aforesaid by running and operating a train of cars on its road from Springfield to Louisville on the Sabbath day, and employing for that purpose an engineer, a fireman, a flagman, and one conductor, and also alleged that the trains were so run for pay and reward. The appellee filed demurrers to each of the petitions, which demurrers were sustained by the court. The following is substantially the judgment or order of the court in each case on the demurrer: The court advised as to the demurrer filed in the foregoing, sustains same. The plaintiff elected to stand by the petition in said case, and prays an appeal to the superior court, which is granted. The appellee insists that these appeals should be dismissed, because there has been no...