Largent v. State of Texas
| Decision Date | 08 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 559,559 |
| Parties | LARGENT v. STATE OF TEXAS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On Appeal from the County Court of Lamar County, Texas.
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This appeal brings here for review the conviction of appellant for violation of Ordinance No. 612 of the City of Paris, Texas, which makes it unlawful for any person to solicit orders or to sell books, wares or merchandise within the residence portion of Paris without first filing an application and obtaining a permit. The ordinance goes on to provide that 'if after investigation the Mayor deems it proper or advisable he may issue a written permit to said person for the purpose of soliciting, selling, canvassing or census taking within the residence portion of the city which permit shall state on its face that it has been issued after a thorough investigation.'1
A complaint in the Corporation Court of Paris charged Mrs. Largent, the appellant, with violating this ordinance by unlawfully offering books for sale without making application for a permit. She was convicted and appealed to the County Court of Lamar County, Texas, where a trial de novo was had.2 There a motion was filed to quash the complaint because the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and at the conclusion of the evidence, there was filed a motion on the same grounds for a finding of not guilty and the discharge of the appellant from custody. Both were overruled.
Appellant's evidence shows that she carries a card of ordination from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, an organization incorporated for the purpose of preaching the Gospel of God's Kingdom. The Society is an organization for Jehovah's Witnesses, an evangelical group, founded upon and drawing inspiration from the tenets of Christianity. The Witnesses spread their teachings under the direction of the Society by distributing the books and pamphlets obtained from the Society by house to house visits. They believe that they have a covenant with Jehovah to enlighten the people as to the truths accepted by the Witnesses by putting into their hands, for study, various religious publications with titles such as Children, Hope, Consolation, Kingdom News, Deliverance, Government and Enemies.
Mrs. Largent offered some of these books to those upon whom she called for a contribution of not to exceed 25 cents for a bound book and several magazines or tracts. If the contribution was not made, the appellant, in accordance with the custom of the Witnesses, would frequently leave a book and tracts without receiving any money. Appellant was making such distributions when arrested. She had not filed an application for or received a permit under the ordinance.
The Witnesses look upon their work as christian and charitable. To them it is not selling books or papers but accepting contributions to further the work in which they are engaged. The prosecuting officer contended that the offer of the publications and the acceptance of the money was a solicitation or sale of books, wares or merchandise. At the conclusion of the hearing, which was without a jury, the judge found appellant guilty of violating the ordinance of the City of Paris and fined her one hundred dollars.
The appeal was brought here under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 344(a), which provides for review of a final judgment of the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had. By our order of December 21, 1942, 63 S.Ct. 325, 87 L.Ed. —-, we requested counsel to discuss whether this judgment could be fully reviewed on this record by a higher state court by habeas corpus or other proceeding. Under the statutes of Texas, no appeal lies from the judgment of the County Court imposing a fine of this amount. Vernon's Texas St.1936, Article 53 (Code of Criminal Procedure);3 Ex parte Largent, Tex.Cr.App., 162 S.W.2d 419, 421, and cases cited. The appellant, under Texas practice, apparently could test by habeas corpus the constitutionality on its face of the ordinance under which she was convicted but may not use that writ to test the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to the act of distributing religious literature. Cf. Ex parte Largent, supra. Since there is by Texas law or practice, no method which has been called to our attention for reviewing the conviction of appellant, on the record made in the county court, we are of the opinion the appeal is properly here under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code. The proceeding in the county court was a distinct suit. It disposed of the charge. The possibility that the appellant might obtain release by a subsequent and dis- tinct proceeding, and one not in the nature of a review of the pending charge, in the same or a different court of the State does not affect the finality of the existing judgment or the fact that this judgment was obtained in the highest state court available to the appellant. Cf. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kay, In re
...... convictions violated the guarantees of free speech and due process of law in the federal and state Constitutions. We issued an order to show cause, and ordered petitioners released on their own ... (Peddling religious books without a license, fine of unstated amount, conviction reversed); Largent v. Texas (1943) 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873 (distribution of handbills without ......
-
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
...746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 (1940); Jamison v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 63 S.Ct. 669, 87 L.Ed. 869 (1943); Largent v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873 (1943); Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103, 63 S.Ct. 890, 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943); Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylva......
-
Furr v. Town of Swansea
......Plaintiffs acknowledge that they speak loudly in order to be heard, but state that they are orderly in every respect; and that no inconvenience is occasioned to members of the ...155 (1939); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873 (1943); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 62 ......
-
Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson
...... for exhibition at any place of amusement for pay or in connection with any business in the state of New York, any motion picture film or reel (with specified exceptions not relevant here), unless ...People of State of New York, 1948, 334 U.S. 558, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 92 L.Ed. 1574; Largent v. State of Texas, 1943, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938, ......
-
Constitutional conversations and new religious movements: a comparative case study.
...569-70 (1942). (31.) See, e.g., Niemotko, 340 U.S. at 269-70; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 141-42 (1943); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 418-20 (1943); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 415 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 148 (1939); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S......
-
The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
...asideon the ground that since freedom ofspeech has a preferred constitutional41 Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943);Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418 (1943).42 Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444(1938) ; Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U. S. 147(1939) ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S.2......
-
The Fiction of the First Freedom
...v. Christensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943); Prince ......
-
THE PRIMACY OF FREE EXERCISE IN PUBLIC-EMPLOYEE RELIGIOUS SPEECH.
...Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." (emphasis omitted and added)); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 509 (1946); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 422 (1943) ("It abridges the freedom of religion, of the press and of speech guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."); Murdock v. Pennsylvan......