Ellis v. Town Of Covington
| Decision Date | 15 November 1917 |
| Citation | 94 S.E. 154,122 Va. 821 |
| Parties | ELLIS . v. TOWN OF COVINGTON. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Alleghany County. Z. N. Ellis was convicted of violating a municipal ordinance by laboring at his tradeor calling of selling Coca-Cola on Sunday, and, the conviction being sustained on appeal to the circuit court, he brings error. Affirmed.
W. E. Allen, of Covington, for plaintiff in error.
P. C. Stokes, of Covington, for defendant in error.
WHIITTLE, P. Plaintiff in error, Ellis, was convicted-by the mayor of Covington for violation of a town ordinance in laboring at his trade or calling of selling Coca-Cola on the Sabbath day, and fined $5 and costs. On appeal the circuit court of Alleghany county sustained the conviction, and the case is here on writ of error to that judgment.
The ordinance in question is substantially in the language of the act of assembly amending and re-enacting section 3799 of the Code, and declares that:
"If a person on the Sabbath day be found laboring at any trade or calling, * * * except in household or other work of necessity, or charity, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than five dollars for each offense: * * * Provided, that for the purpose of this act, the delivery on the Sabbath day of ice cream manufactured on some day other than the Sabbath day shall be construed as a work of necessity." Acts 1916, p. 751.
It may be noted that this amendment, making such violation of the Sabbath day a misdemeanor, changes the rule announced in Wells v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 834, 57 S. E. 588, where it was held that under the former statute the transgression was not a misdemeanor, and the forfeiture thereby imposed could only be recovered by a civil warrant.
Objection is made to reviewing the judgment in this case on the ground that the evidence is not part of the record, though it is conceded that it was certified by the trial judge in accordance with an act approved March 21, 1916. (Acts 1916, p. 708). Yet it is said the Legislature passed another act on the same day, preserving bills of exceptions (Acts 1916, p. 722), and that the two enactments are incompatible and neutralize each other.
The situation is this: The act last referred to was made an emergency act, and went into effect immediately, while the first-mentioned act was not an emergency act, and by constitutional provision did not take effect until 90 days after the adjournment of the Legislature (Const. § 53, art. 4); and it expressly repealed "all statutes or parts of statutes in derogation of, or in conflict with, the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Hanna
...act is to provide an informal alternative procedure to the old bill of exceptions, and that it is to be liberally construed. Ellis v. Town of Covington, supra. No provision the Virginia Statute requires a certificate of evidence to be made of record by an order, and no decision of that juri......
-
State v. Leadmon
... ... its provisions are very liberal as to what constitutes a ... sufficient certificate. Ellis v. Town of Covington, ... 122 Va. 821, 94 S.E. 154 ... If the ... Legislature ... ...
- Ventura v. Winegardner
-
Francisco v. Commonwealth
...the trial court took the view that in Hanger v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 872, '60 S.E. 67, 14 L.R.A..N.S., 683, and in Ellis v. Town of Covington, 122 Va. 821, 94 S.E. 154, this court had decided that as a matter of law the sale of soft drinks, cigarettes and tobacco on Sunday was a violation ......