Quarles v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1891 |
| Citation | 17 S.W. 269,55 Ark. 10 |
| Parties | QUARLES v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court, ROBERT J. LEA, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
J. M Rose for appellant.
The words of sec. 1883, Mansf. Dig., are not wide enough to cover a Sunday theater or place of amusement. Sabbath breaking is not a common law offense. 2 Chitty, Cr. Law, 20. As the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Bish., St. Cr., secs. 216, 218. The word used is "labor," which has a legal technical meaning, and the statute was not intended to include amusements. 5 Pa. C. C., 10; 35 Hun, 327; 16 Ind. 396; 7 So 223; 22 Weekly Law Bulletin, 323. These cases show that offenses must come clearly within the statute to be embraced in it.
W. E Atkinson, Attorney General, and Chas. T. Coleman for appellee.
The statute is both penal and remedial, and should not be construed so strictly as to defeat its obvious intention. 8 Pick., 373; Suth. Stat. Constr., sec. 348; 29 Ark. 400. The acts set forth in the agreed statement clearly constitute a laboring on the Sabbath, within the meaning of the law. See 29 Ark. 386; 31 id., 520; 45 id., 348; 25 Barb., 341; 4 Ind. 619; 33 Ind. 201; 15 Ohio 241; 119 Ind. 379.
The appellant was convicted upon an indictment in which he is charged with a violation of section 1883 of Mansfield's Digest, which provides that "Every person, who shall on the Sabbath or Sunday be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or to perform other services than customary household duties, of daily necessity, comfort or charity, on conviction thereof, shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense." There were two counts in the indictment, in the first of which the charge is that "the said H. C. Quarles, on the 30th day of November, 1890, said day being Sunday, unlawfully was found laboring, to wit: Selling theater tickets, said labor then and there being other than customary household duties of daily necessity, comfort or charity." In the second count the appellant is charged with "laboring on Sunday by managing and superintending the Capital Theater for the purpose of producing and having produced a certain play and performance in said Capital Theater," etc.
The case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts that "the defendant is the manager of the Capital Theater, where theatrical exhibitions are given for profit, and, at the time and place mentioned in the indictment, did open said Capital Theater, and did give a public theatrical entertainment therein, and did sell tickets and manage and superintend said exhibition."
The appellant asked the court to declare the law to be that "the opening, superintending and managing a public theater, giving a theatrical entertainment, and selling tickets therefor, is not labor within the meaning of section 1883 of Mansfield's Digest." This the court refused to do; as we think, very properly. The appellant excepted and appealed.
The only question presented here is: Did the acts charged and admitted to have been performed constitute labor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stark v. Backus
...to be distinguished by the appellant supra, and added: Judefind v. State, 78 Md. 510, 28 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 721;Quarles v. State, 55 Ark. 10, 17 S. W. 269, 14 L. R. A. 192;State v. O'Rourk, 35 Neb. 614, 53 N. W. 591, 17 L. R. A. 830; Phillips v. Innes, 4 Clark & Fin. 234; Commonwealth v.......
-
Rosenbaum v. State
... ... regarded a necessity, in the sense of the statute." See ... also, State v. Collett, 72 Ark. 167, 79 ... S.W. 791; Barefield v. State, 85 Ark. 134, ... 107 S.W. 393; see Turner v. State, 85 Ark ... 188, 107 S.W. 388 ... But ... this court, in Quarles v. State, 55 Ark ... 10, 17 S.W. 269, has held upon a state of facts which can not ... be distinguished, in principle, from the facts here proved ... that the manager of a public theatre who sells tickets for ... and superintends an entertainment therein on Sunday is guilty ... of laboring on ... ...
-
Theater v. State
...confers no jurisdiction on courts of equity. 37 S.W. 478; 81 Ark. 117. Nor does injunction lie to prevent a violation of the criminal laws. 55 Ark. 10; 2 Wood Nuisances, § 788 to 791; 37 S.W. 478; 42 Am. Rep. 182. 2. Where the remedy is complete at law, equity is without jurisdiction. 13 Ar......
-
McAfee v. Com.
... ... court imposed a fine of $100, and McAfee appeals, insisting ... that on the agreed state of facts there should have been a ... judgment of acquittal ... The ... offense of which McAfee was found guilty was not that ... complained of or to the person or persons for whom he does ... it. Com. v. White, 190 Mass. 578, 77 N.E. 636, 5 ... L.R.A. (N. S.) 320; Quarles v. State, 55 Ark. 10, 17 ... S.W. 269, 14 L.R.A. 192; Western Union Telegraph Co. v ... Yopst, 118 Ind. 248, 20 N.E. 222, 3 L.R.A. 224; ... State ... ...