Ex Parte Zuccaro
| Decision Date | 10 December 1913 |
| Citation | 162 S.W. 844 |
| Parties | Ex parte ZUCCARO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Baskin, Dodge & Eastus and John W. Wray, all of Ft. Worth, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an original application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus and a companion application to Ex parte Mussett, 162 S. W. 846, this day dismissed. It shows that on January 27, 1912, the state of Texas by the county attorney of Tarrant county instituted a suit in the Sixty-Seventh district court of Tarrant county, Tex., seeking to enjoin this applicant, and others, from operating his place of business as a moving picture show in the city of Ft. Worth on Sunday, for which he charged an entrance fee. The petition is against the applicant herein and several others, naming them. Some of the others were alleged to be operating theaters and giving shows therein on Sunday and charging a fee thereto. Others, like the applicant herein, were proprietors of other moving picture shows. That in such theaters vaudeville performances and plays were given for public amusement, and that in all the moving picture shows scenes and performances, commonly known as moving pictures, were shown and exhibited for public amusement, for admission to all of which a fee was charged; that all of said persons had entered into a combination and conspiracy together and with each other to violate the laws of this state in this: That they and each of them have entered into a combination and conspiracy to operate, open, and permit to be opened, their respective theaters and places of public amusement on Sunday, and to give theatrical performances in said theater and exhibitions of moving pictures in said moving picture shows, and to charge a fee for admission thereto in violation of article 302 (199) of the Penal Code, quoting it, prohibiting such business on Sunday; that said parties are now carrying out their conspiracy, and have employed attorneys to represent said combination, and each and every one of the defendants therein named, for a stipulated consideration in each and every case in which they, or any of them, may be prosecuted in the courts of this state for the violation of said law, and said article of the Penal Code prohibits such exhibitions, and makes any one guilty of a misdemeanor who violates such article. That said theaters and moving picture shows give several performances during the day on Sunday, and derive hundreds and thousands of dollars each Sunday that they so operate in violation of such law, and the proprietors, managers, agents, and employès, the defendants named, can readily and easily pay the maximum fine provided for a violation of said law and still continue the operation of their business in violation of the law and the plain intent thereof. That they, and each of them, have for some 10 or 12 Sundays before then operated their places in violation of said law, and that some of them have been prosecuted in the county court of Tarrant county, and have, by a jury, been given the maximum fine in said cases, but that has not deterred them, and will not, from further violation of said law; that for the reasons above set forth irreparable injury is done the state of Texas, and there is no adequate remedy at law which can avail to prevent said parties from the violation of said law. The petition then further sets up, in a separate paragraph, and, as we take it, a separate count, that an epidemic of meningitis is prevailing in Ft. Worth and in Dallas, Tex., and, such houses in Dallas, because thereof, having been closed up, large numbers of persons from that city and elsewhere go to Ft. Worth for the purpose of attending, and attend, these performances by these parties on Sunday; that by reason thereof the public health demands that some extraordinary action be taken to close said theaters and moving picture shows on Sunday, and if such relief is denied, irreparable injury will result to the state, and it has no adequate remedy at law. The petitioner then prays for a restraining order enjoining, restraining, and prohibiting defendants, and each of them, from opening, or permitting to be opened their theaters and moving picture shows on any Sunday from and after the filing of this petition, and the cause be set down for hearing at some future day and for final hearing; that they be notified, and upon such hearing, make permanent the temporary restraining order, forever enjoining, restraining, and prohibiting them and each of them from opening, or permitting to be opened, their theaters and picture shows on Sunday, and from giving therein on Sunday a performance for admission to which a fee is charged, and from a further violation of said law, for costs and all other relief, in law and in equity, to which the state may be entitled. This is sworn to by the county attorney. We have given merely a brief outline of the petition. This application further shows that said petition was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Mode
......The Constitution has never invested the Court of Criminal Appeals with such authority, and my Brethren seem to have recognized this very emphatically in the recent cases of Ex parte Zuccaro, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 214, 162 S. W. 844, and Ex parte Mussett, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 487, 162 S. W. 846. As late as last June the Supreme Court of this state reasserted the doctrine of the Swisher Case. So we have that august body affirming and reaffirming the doctrine of the Swisher Case from the time of its ......
-
State v. Clark
...... the said law, and paid the city, county, and state license long after the law had been adopted, and after the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Francis, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 165 S. W. 147, had held the law valid, and had not rented the building, nor obtained the state, county, and city ...Cr. R. 487, 162 S. W. 846, and Ex parte Zuccaro, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 162 S. W. 844. I also am of the opinion that I am further supported in this conclusion by the opinions of the majority in Ex ......
-
In re Reece
...... We have broadly defined contempt as “disobedience to or disrespect of a court by acting in opposition to its authority,” Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.1995) (orig. proceeding), and observed that contempt is a broad and inherent power of a court, see Ex parte ... with the civil courts, and thus interfer[ing] with [the civil courts'] proper functioning and the administration of justice”); Ex parte Zuccaro, 72 Tex.Crim. 214, 162 S.W. 844, 845 (1913) (observing that the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in criminal cases and has no jurisdiction ......
-
State ex rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of Appeals for Third Dist.
...... We affirmed. Graham v. State, 671 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). We denied Graham's first application for writ of habeas corpus, Ex parte Graham (Tex.Cr.App. No. 17,568-01, delivered February 19, 1988) (not published), and Graham unsuccessfully petitioned the federal courts for relief. ... Ex parte Zuccaro, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 214, 162 S.W. 844 (1913); Ex parte Mussett, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 487, 162 S.W. 846 (1913). 4 "[I]t is well settled that equity will ......