State v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 15 April 1908
• Citation: 80 Conn. 582,69 A. 536
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. RYAN.

69 A. 536

80 Conn. 582

STATE

v. RYAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 15, 1908.

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; William S. Case, Judge.

James F. Ryan was convicted of unlawfully doing secular business and labor on Sunday in violation of Gen. St. 1902, § 1369, and appeals. Affirmed.

Information by the state's attorney, filed in the superior court for Litchfield county, under Gen. St. 1902, § 1369, charging that the defendant "unlawfully did secular business and labor between 12 o'clock Saturday night, September 28, 1907, and 12 o'clock Sunday night, September 20, 1907, to wit, did sell tickets and receive compensation therefor for admission to a moving picture show theretofore advertised and published to take place on said September 29, 1907, at a certain building called the Torrington Opera House, said secular business and labor not being a work of necessity or mercy." Verdict of guilty, and judgment accordingly.

Homer R. Scoville, for appellant. Donald T. Warner, State's Atty., for the State.

BALDWIN, C. J. The facts in the case at bar were undisputed. The defendant sold, for personal gain, at about a quarter past 8 o'clock on Sunday evening, at the ticket office of the Torrington Opera House, tickets to a "moving picture show." It had been advertised in the Torrington newspaper that such a show would take place in that house that evening. In fact there was none. Gen. St. 1902, § 1369, which prohibits "any secular business or labor except works of necessity or mercy," or engaging "in any sport" between midnight of Saturday and midnight of Sunday, when read in connection with section 1370, making it a penal offense to "be present at any concert of music, dancing, or other public diversion on Sunday or on the evening thereof," supports the charge of the court that tills sale was not a work of necessity or mercy. The word "show" appeared in our statute "for the due observance of the Sabbath or Lord's Day," in the Revision of 1786, p. 213. It is contained in a paragraph out of which came Gen. St. 1902, § 137, forbidding any one to be "present at any concert of music, dancing, or any public diversion, shew, or entertainment." The last three words were omitted in the Revision of 1821 (page 385, tit. 82, § 1) in making which the aim was to abbreviate wherever it was possible. It is not to be presumed that they were dropped from any other cause than the belief that public "shows" were included in the term "public diversion." Stapleberg v. Stapleberg, 77 Conn. 31, 35, 58 Atl. 233. The show with which the defendant was connected was a public one, to be given in an opera house. It cannot be a work of necessity or mercy to promote attendance at a...