State v. Miller

Decision Date01 December 1896
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. MILLER.

Case reserved from court of common pleas, New Haven county; Hotchkiss, Judge.

Charles H. Miller was tried for keeping open on Sunday a place in which billiards was played. Defendant demurred, and, on reservation of the case, judgment was overruled, and demurrer advised.

George M. Gunn, Pros. Atty., for the State.

E. P. Arvine, for defendant.

HAMERSLEY, J. The partaking in sports or games of chance is not made an offense by section 3097 of the General Statutes, nor is it an offense by virtue of any law now in force. Formerly all games of chance were illegal, and sports or games involving a combination of skill and luck to any degree seem to have been included under the ban. In 1650 the "game of shuffle (shovel) board" was specially prohibited, and "any unlawful game" was forbidden. In 1656 games "altogether unlawful, in the very nature of them," were defined as "cards, dice, tables, or any other game wherein that great and solemn ordinance of a Lott is expressly and directly abused and profaned" (1 Col. Rec. 527, 289); i. e. inasmuch as the Word of God authorized in certain cases the ascertainment of the divine will and the settlement of controversies by the "Lott," the profanation of this ordinance to the purposes of frivolous amusement is forbidden by the Word of God, and is therefore unlawful. The use of the lot for purposes of gain was also unlawful, unless the object were one approved by the general court; as when, in 1753, permission was given to the trustees of the College of New Jersey to raise money by way of lottery for building "a public house for entertaining the students" (permission therefor having been repeatedly refused by the general assembly of that" province), the general court found the object to be "for the encouragement of religion and learning," and therefore lawful, and not an abuse of the ordinance. 10 Col. Rec. 217. In 1750, "An act against gaming" (i. e. playing at games; the special prohibitions of gambling in its various forms came later) forbids dice, cards, tables, bowls, shuffieboard, billiards, coytes (quoits), keils (kayle), loggets (loggats), "or any other unlawful games or sport." Acts 1754, p. 81. Common sense, however, eventually asserted its supremacy in such matters, and legislation has ceased to stigmatize innocent amusements as criminal, and legislative discretion is no longer invoked to define those pious uses that may be potent to extract its inherent vice from gambling.

Section 3097 does not make partaking in "sports or games of chance" on Sunday an offense. Section 1569 retains a portion of the early Sunday legislation, and forbids any one to "engage in any sport or recreation on Sunday." This early legislation was based not only of the duty of the state to protect its citizens from wanton insults to their religious faith and observances, and in the enjoyment of the peace and quiet to which they may be entitled on a legal holiday, but also upon the duty of the state to compel all citizens to conform to the religious tenets established by the state as binding on the con science of all. The Sunday law was at first administered by the general court, without special legislation, in conformity with the Word of God, which was accepted as supplying, in analogy to the English common law defects in express legislation; and the Code of 1650 only provided a special penalty for open contempt of God's Word, or the ministers thereof, and neglect to attend the public ministry of the Word; directing the civil magistrates to deal with any one who failed to observe the peace, ordinances, and rules of Christ as established by law. Special provisions, from time to time, were enacted. The various special provisions appear in the Revision of 1750, in "An act for the due observation and keeping the Sabbath, or Lord's Day; and for preventing and punishing disorders and prophaneness on the same." This act also is in part based on the duty of the state to enforce personal piety as by law established. It requires every person on that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Moss v. Hornig
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 9 d3 Maio d3 1962
    ...no doubt that only this was intended, because, in support of the quoted statement, the court cited the early decision of State v. Miller, 68 Conn. 373, 36 A. 795 (1896), the opinion of which makes that clear. The Miller case traced the legislative trend away from the original religious aspe......
  • Gowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc Two Guys From v. Ginley Braunfeld v. Brown, HARRISON-ALLENTOW
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 d1 Maio d1 1961
    ...found authorized by police power). See also Kreider v. State, 1912, 103 Ark. 438, 440, 147 S.W. 449, 450; State v. Miller, 1896, 68 Conn. 373, 377—378, 36 A. 795, 796; State v. Diamond, 1925, 56 N.D. 854, 857—858, 219 N.W. 831, 832—833; Rich v. Commonwealth, 1956, 198 Va. 445, 449, 453, 94 ......
  • State v. Hurliman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 19 d2 Junho d2 1956
    ...is to secure a fitting observance of Sunday both as a day for religious worship and as a day for rest and recreation. State v. Miller, 68 Conn. 373, 376, 36 A. 795. Over the years the trend has been toward a liberalization of the law to permit labor and other activities which promote the re......
  • State v. Rawlings
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 d2 Fevereiro d2 1911
    ...... Mosely v. State, 74 Ga. 404;. Renshaw v. Mo. St. Mutual, 103 Mo. 595;. O'Neill v. Insurance Co., 3 N.Y. 122;. Insurance Co. v. Lawrence, 61 Ky. 9; Eubanks v. State, 17 Ala. 181; Commonwealth v. Palmer, 134. Mass. 537; People v. Rice, 103 Mich. 350; State. v. Miller, 36 A. 795; Commonwealth v. Patterson, 138 Mass. 495; Spring field Ins. Co. v. Wade, 58 L. R. A. 714; Mears v. Ins. Co., 92. Pa. St. 15. The instruction is wrong in that it fails to. require the jury to find that defendant delivered the whiskey. to a person who was not authorized by law ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT