Rogers v. State
Decision Date | 09 April 1964 |
Citation | 199 A.2d 895,57 Del. 334 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Parties | , 57 Del. 334 Carl ROGERS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
Edward W. Cooch, Jr., and H. Alfred Tarrant, Jr., of Cooch & Taylor, Wilmington, for appellant.
Thomas Herlihy, III, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., and Merrill C. Trader, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant appeals from a finding of guit in the Superior Court upon a charge of barbering on Sunday in violation of 24 Del.C. § 415. He challenges the constitutionality of the statute, which reads as follows:
'Whoever carries on or engages in the business of shaving, haircutting or other work of a barber, or whoever opens or allows to be open his barber shop or place where such business is done, for the purpose of carrying on his said business on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor * * *'.
The Court below held the challenged section constitutional. See State v. Rogers, Del.Super., 180 A.2d 735.
The facts have been stipulated to be these: Defendant, a barber and beautician, operated a barbershop at the New Castle Farmers Market on Friday and Saturdays from 12 noon to midnight and on Sundays from 12 noon to six P.M. His barbershop was his only source of income. He had a steady clientele on Sundays. He was arrested on Sunday, January 14, 1962 at his place of business. At the time of his arrest, a beauty shop was open and operating at the Farmers Market.
Appellant contends that the section quoted above violates the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as well as Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the Delaware Constitution, Del.C.Ann. Part of his argument is based upon 24 Del.C. § 401 reading in part as follows:
'As used in this chapter * * * '[p]racticing the occupation of barber' includes the shaving or trimming of the beard and the cutting of the hair of any person for hire or reward, provided that this chapter shall not apply to beauticians cutting or trimming the hair of females.'
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether, in the absence of a general Sunday closing law, a statute singling out barbers (excluding beauticians) and requiring them to close their establishments on Sunday is an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of the police power and therefore unconstitutional.
Countrary to the situation in some states, Delaware has no general Sunday closing law which applies equally to retail businesses, labor or other activities. We do have a few individual statutes prohibiting or restricting a few activities on Sunday, such as the sale of alcoholic liquor, games of bingo, and certain public entertainment. General Sunday closing statutes have, of course, been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, even though they may contain certain exceptions. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393; Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582, 81 S.Ct. 1135, 6 L.Ed.2d 551.
In some jurisdictions, statutes requiring barbers to close on Sundays have been upheld, even though there was no general Sunday closing law. People v. Havnor, 149 N.Y. 195, 43 N.E. 541, 31 L.R.A. 689; Ex parte Northrup, 41 Or. 489, 69 P. 445; State v. Bergfeldt, 41 Wash. 234, 83 P. 177. In other jurisdictions, however, the contrary view has been taken and statutes aimed only at barbershops were held discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable in the absence of a general Sunday closing law. Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 P. 803, 32 L.R.A. 664; Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, 43 N.E. 1108, 32 L.R.A. 659; City of Miami v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., Fla., 50 So.2d 883; Chaires v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 755, 139 S.E. 559, 55 A.L.R. 230; State Board of Barber Examiners v. Cloud, 220 Ind. 552, 44 N.E.2d 972; In re Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 796, 151 N.E.2d 631.
Certain basic principles applicable to cases of this nature are cummarized in Hoff v. State, 9 W.W.Harr. 134, 39 Del. 134, 197 A. 75, from which we quote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woonsocket Prescription Center, Inc. v. Michaelson
...Spokane v. Valu-Mart, Inc., 69 Wash.2d 712, 419 P.2d 993 (1966); Nation v. Giant Drug Co., 396 P.2d 431 (Wyo.1964); Rogers v. Delaware, 57 Del. 334, 199 A.2d 895 (1964). 12 After final preparation of this opinion was completed, the Court received plaintiffs' letter of July 26, 1976, expandi......
-
Carroll v. Tarburton
...invalid for this reason only if the classification of those covered and those not covered has no reasonable basis. See Rogers v. State, Super.Ct., 199 A.2d 895 (1964); Van Winkle v. State, 4 Boyce 578, 91 A. 385 (1914); Hotel Suburban Sys. v. Holderman, 42 N.J.Super. 84, 125 A.2d 908 The St......
-
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Tribbitt
...be accomplished. Within these limits, the court will not assume to disturb the legislative action." (Emphasis added.) In Rogers v. State, Del.Supr., 199 A.2d 895 (1964) the Delaware Supreme Court, in reviewing a statute designed to prevent barbering on Sunday, adopted and applied the above-......