State v. Hall
| Decision Date | 11 October 1887 |
| Citation | 72 Iowa 525,34 N.W. 315 |
| Parties | STATE v. HALL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Mahaska county.
The defendant is a barber, and carries on his business in a shop in the city of Oskaloosa. He was indicted, tried, and convicted for refusing to shave another in his said shop. He appealed.Lafferty & Morgan, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment was in these words: “The said Ben Hall, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord 1886, in the county aforesaid, was the owner of, and had in his possession and under his control, a barber-shop, in the city of Oskaloosa, in said county; said barber-shop being then and there a public place, resorted to by divers persons for the purpose of having their hair dressed and being shaved therein by said Ben Hall, whose trade and occupation was that of a barber, and who was on said date pursuing said trade in said barber-shop; and, while thus employed therein, one C. R. Bennett entered said barber-shop, seated himself in one of the chairs therein, and requested said Ben Hall to shave him; and the said Ben Hall then and there knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully refused to shave said Bennett, and would give no reason therefor, contrary to and in violation of the provisions of chapter 105 of the Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly of the State of Iowa.”
The statute upon which the indictment was founded is as follows:
“Section 1. That all persons within this state shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances, barber-shops, theaters, and other places of amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to every person.
Sec. 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any person, except for reason by law applicable to all persons, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges enumerated in said section, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for each offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”
There was a demurrer to the indictment; one ground of which was that the charge and facts set forth in the indictment do not constitute an offense punishable by law. The demurrer was overruled. We think it should have been sustained, upon the ground above set out. The indictment charges that on the first day of March, 1886...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amos v. Prom, Inc.
...the Act. There are only five cases in which an Iowa Supreme Court has dealt with or referred to the Act. In the case of State v. Hall, 1887, 72 Iowa 525, 34 N. W. 315, an indictment charging a violation of the Act was held to be insufficient. In the case of Humburd v. Crawford, 1905, 128 Io......
-
State v. Katz, 47425
...that an Information which does not negative the exception in the statute, noted above, fails to state a crime. The case of State v. Hall, 72 Iowa 525, 34 N.W. 315, is cited as authority for this position and it holds just that, but appellant overlooks Chapter 266, Acts 43rd G.A. of Iowa, Se......
- State v. Hall