In re Application of Bossner

• Decision Date: 13 August 1910
• Citation: 18 Idaho 519,110 P. 502
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of FRED BOSSNER, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

110 P. 502

18 Idaho 519

In the Matter of the Application of FRED BOSSNER, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 13, 1910

SUNDAY REST LAW-PUBLIC AMUSEMENTS-MOVING PICTURE SHOW-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

(Syllabus by the reporter.)

1. A moving picture show or exhibition comes within the inhibition of sec. 6825, Rev. Codes, which forbids the opening or conducting upon Sunday of "any theater, playhouse circus or show.... or any such place of public amusement."

2. Words used in a statute without any technical meaning or application should be given their ordinary significance as they are popularly understood, and the language used by the legislature must be construed in the light of the common acceptation of the terms employed.

Original action in this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of the crime of keeping open a place of public amusement on Sunday, such amusement consisting in opening and conducting what is alleged to be a theater known as "The Boz" in Boise, and therein producing a moving picture exhibition to which he admitted the public on payment of an admission fee. The prosecution was had under sec. 6825 of the Rev. Codes.

Petition denied.

C. M Kahn, J. F. Nugent, and A. H. Brickenstein, for Petitioner, file no brief.

D. C. McDougall, Attorney General, J. H. Peterson, O. M. Van Duyn, Assistants, and H. S. Kessler, for Defendant.

If the language of the statute enumerating the prohibited amusements does not include a moving picture show, or any other kind of a public show or theater, it means absolutely nothing at all.

Webster defines theater as being: "1. An edifice in which dramatic performances or spectacles are exhibited for the amusement of spectators. 2. Any room adapted to the exhibition of any performances before an assembly, as public lectures, scholastic exhibitions, anatomical demonstrations, surgical operations before a class," etc.

"Laws are enacted to be read and obeyed by the people, and in order to reach a reasonable and sensible construction thereof, words that are in common use among the people shall be given the same meaning in the statute as they have among the great mass of people who are expected to read, obey and uphold them." (Adams v. Lansdon, ante, p. 483, 110 P. 280.)

AILSHIE, J. Sullivan, C. J., concurring.

OPINION

The opinion of the court was delivered orally from the bench by

AILSHIE, J.

--It is contended by the state that a moving picture show or exhibition is popularly designated and called a theater, and that it comes within the prohibition of the statute which forbids the opening or conducting of any theater, playhouse or show, etc., on Sunday.

As we said by this court in Re Hull, 18 Idaho 475, 110 P. 256: "It is difficult to tell the exact theory on which the lawmakers drafted this section of our statute. The amusements enumerated and prohibited are not similar or kindred amusements. There is apparently nothing common to all of them, except that they are all public amusements." We can only judge the spirit and intent of the statute from the language employed and the class of amusements prohibited. The prohibition in some cases seems to have been based on the theory of advancing the public health, in others the public morals, and still others to promote public peace and quiet on Sunday, while other amusements are forbidden apparently for the sake of affording rest to the employees. The purpose to provide rest for employees is more completely covered and evidently more directly aimed at by the provisions of the preceding section. (Sec. 6824.)

The petitioner contends that a moving picture exhibition is not a theater, playhouse or show, and that it is not "any such place of public amusement." It may be conceded for the purposes of this case that a moving picture exhibition or show is not a theater within the technical meaning of that word as given by the standard authorities. It is equally clear, we think, that such an exhibition or show is classed and considered as a theater within the common and popular acceptation of that word. Such a place is commonly referred to as a theater or moving picture show. It is a well-established rule of law that when words have not a technical meaning or application, or when they have not been so used or employed in the statute, they should then be given their ordinary significance as t...