Sportatorium, Inc. v. State
Decision Date | 20 March 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 12469.,12469. |
Parties | SPORTATORIUM, Inc., et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Claude M. McCallum, Judge.
Action to enjoin an alleged nuisance by the State of Texas against Sportatorium, Inc., and others. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
J. E. Newberry, Robert L. Hurt, and M. R. Irion, all of Dallas, for appellants.
Andrew Patton, Guy L. Mann, and E. G. Moseley, all of Dallas, for the State.
The State of Texas, through Hon. Andrew Patton, District Attorney for Dallas county, brought this action against the Sportatorium, Inc., W. T. Cox, Max Grossman, and Red Norton (and two others, later dismissed from the suit), under the provisions of article 614b, Vernon's Ann. P.C. (an Act of the 43d Legislature, 1934, Second Called Session, p. 131, c. 62), also under the provisions of article 4664, R.C.S., alleging that defendants were maintaining a nuisance, as defined in said articles of the statute, praying that on final hearing the nuisance be abated and enjoined and, in the meantime, that defendants be temporarily enjoined from maintaining same. Appellants denied that they were guilty of maintaining a nuisance, on the contrary, were conducting merely a floor show, not in violation of any law. On hearing, the court granted the temporary writ, from which this appeal was prosecuted.
The applicable sections of article 614b are: Section 1, which reads as follows: "It shall hereafter be unlawful for any person to conduct in public competition for prizes, awards or admission fees, any personal, physical or mental endurance contest that continues longer than twenty-four (24) hours"; section 2, "It shall hereafter be unlawful for any person to conduct, within any period of one hundred sixty-eight (168) hours, in public competition for prizes, awards, or admission fees, more than one (1) such personal, physical or mental endurance contest at the same place or location, and in which any of the same contestants engage"; also, section 7, reading: Also section 8, among others, makes it the duty of the district attorney, on reliable information that such nuisance exists, to file suit in the name of the State against whoever is maintaining the same, for its abatement and to enjoin its future maintenance.
While appellants in their brief have not questioned the constitutional validity of the statute in question, it was suggested at the oral argument that it was of doubtful validity. We think the act is valid and that in its enactment the Legislature was clearly within the proper exercise of its police power for the protection of the health and morals of the people. City of Birmingham v. Leo A. Seltzer, Inc., 229 Ala. 675, 159 So. 203; Pughe v. Lyle (D. C.) 10 F.Supp. 245; Weaver v. Stone (D. C.) 11 F.Supp. 559.
The facts show that appellants were engaged or interested in an attraction designated on their admission tickets as the "Battle of the Champions," "Derby Show," "The 1937 Version of the Walkathon," conducted in a building known as the "Sportatorium," located near the intersection of Industrial boulevard and Cadiz street, near the limits of the city of Dallas. Four deputy sheriffs of Dallas county witnessed these performances (relieving each other at the vigil) from Friday, February 19, 1937, at 1:56 p. m. to 11 p. m. Saturday, February 20th; also by Harold McCracken, assistant district attorney, who attended same from 7:30 p. m., November 18, 1937, to about 11 p. m. same day, and again on the night of February 19th, and also on Saturday night, February 20th, from 11:30 to 1:45 a. m. February 21st. These witnesses observed the crowds, the different physical acts and performances of the participants, and heard the announcements made by the manager of the performances and the advertisements broadcasted over radio from the building. The entertainments begun Thursday, February 18, 1937, at 9 p. m. and ended Monday, February 22d. At first, about 34 couples (a man and a woman) participated in the performances, the participants being persons who formerly had training for this character of entertainment. During the first night, 5 participants were eliminated; the second night 8 more were eliminated, and at the close only 20 couples remained, the others having been eliminated under some order or rule of the management. The same persons participated throughout the performances, until eliminated — that is, the 20 couples remaining at the end were among those at the beginning. Their physical activities were dancing or walking around on the platform built in the center of the arena, and were required to be continually in motion for 45 minutes of each hour during 22 hours of each day, 15 minutes of each hour and two hours — from 5 to 7 — each morning were allowed for rest, sleep, recreation, etc. As touching the character of the performances, Mr. Grossman, one of the defendants, testified that at 1:30 p. m. Saturday (February 20th) their Mr. Hall announced over radio, as follows: And again, at 4:15 p. m. the following announcement was made over radio: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sportatorium, Inc. v. State, 12619.
...known as article 614b of Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code. The parties to this record have been previously before this court in Sportatorium, Inc., v. State, 104 S.W.2d 912; but it is conceded that the points here presented were not directly involved in that appeal. See, also, Braden v. State, 108 S......
-
Frost Nat. Bank of San Antonio v. Kayton
...to the position taken by him. 44 A.L.R.2d 1027, 1031, 1032 (1955); Gould v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 146 S.W. 172 (1912); Sportatorium, Inc. v. State, 104 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1937, no writ); Southern Pacific Co. v. Godfrey, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 616, 107 S.W. 1135 (1908, writ ref'd).......
-
Alpha Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 15016
...for its summary abatement. Skipper-Bivens Oil Co. v. State, 115 S.W.2d 1016, Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1938, writ ref.; Sportatorium, Inc. v. State, 104 S.W.2d 912, Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1937, writ dism.; State ex rel. Shook v. All Texas Racing Ass'n, 128 Tex. 384, 97 S.W.2d 669, Tex.Sup. 1936; J......
-
Parker v. State
...State, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 545. We have also considered certain cases other than those cited by appellee. In Sportatorium, Inc., v. State, Tex.Civ. App., 104 S.W.2d 912, 919, writ dismissed, defendants were enjoined from maintaining a nuisance as being in violation of Art. 614b, Vernon'......