State v. Weiss
| Decision Date | 12 January 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,653 - (222) |
| Citation | 105 N.W. 1127,97 Minn. 125 |
| Parties | STATE v. M. A. WEISS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis, Waite, J., whereby he was convicted of the offense of selling groceries on Sunday, in violation of chapter 362, Laws 1903. Affirmed.
Sunday Law.
Chapter 362, p. 652, Laws 1903, prohibiting the public traffic in certain articles of merchandise on Sunday, is constitutional. State v. Justus, 91 Minn. 447, followed.
Application to Hebrews.
That the defendant was of the Hebrew race and of the Jewish Church, regularly attended such church as his place of worship on Saturdays or the seventh day of each week, and believed in the doctrines of that church, among other things that Saturday, or the seventh day of every week, is the Sabbath or Lord's Day, to be observed and kept by him as a day of worship, does not in any manner affect the constitutionality of chapter 362, p. 652, Laws 1903.
Police Power.
The Sunday law is justified as a sanitary measure and as a legitimate exercise of police power.
Defense.
Section 6514, G.S. 1894, which provides that "it is a sufficient defense to a prosecution for servile labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time and does not labor upon that day," has no application to a proprietor publicly selling groceries on Sunday.
Frank P. Nantz, for appellant.
Frank Healy and A.C. Finney, for the state.
At the time of arraignment in the municipal court of Minneapolis upon a complaint charging him with violation of the Sunday law, the defendant and appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Thereupon the parties entered into the following stipulation:
That said defendant did on Sunday, the 24th day of September, 1905, publicly sell, at said city of Minneapolis in said county and state, a quantity of groceries, to wit, one package of grape nuts breakfast food to one O. M. Wassing, and one bottle of catsup to one George Clark; that said sales were made at the grocery store of which said defendant was proprietor, and which was then kept open to the public for public selling.
The following facts were also stipulated, subject, however, to the objection on the part of the plaintiff that the same were incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and do not constitute a defense:
That the defendant is a Hebrew by race, but a citizen of the United States and the state of Minnesota, and resides and has resided therein for several years last past, and has been engaged and is now engaged in the grocery business therein; that he is a man of over fifty years of age, and during his whole lifetime has been, and now is, a member of the Jewish church, regularly attending such church as his place of worship on Saturdays, or the seventh day of each week, and in good faith has believed and still believes in the doctrines of said church, consisting, among other things, that Saturday, or the seventh day of every week, is the Sabbath or Lord's Day, to be observed and kept by him as a day of worship, and that it is not right to do any business or labor on such day; that during all the time he has been engaged in said business said defendant has conscientiously observed, and now so observes, in good faith, said seventh day of the week as the Sabbath or Lord's Day, and uniformly kept, and now keeps, the same as a day of worship and holy time, and has never transacted any business nor performed any labor nor does he now transact any business or perform any labor on said day; that according to the doctrines of said Jewish church, conscientiously believed in and practiced by this defendant, no other day than said seventh day of the week has been, or is, the Sabbath or the Lord's Day, and that the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday in the state of Minnesota, is not the Sabbath or Lord's Day, and that it is not wrong for defendant to perform labor or do business on such day; and that this defendant, so believing, conscientiously and in good faith, made the sales of the groceries hereinbefore specified and set out in the complaint herein, believing that the same was not wrong, nor in violation of law, but that it was right for him so to do; that such sales were made in a quiet and orderly manner, so as not to interrupt nor disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week, on which said sales were made, as holy time.
Upon this stipulation of facts defendant was adjudged guilty and ordered to pay a fine of three dollars, and in default thereof to be imprisoned in the workhouse of the city of Minneapolis until said fine was paid, not exceeding the term of three days. Thereupon the case was removed to this court, upon a settled case, allowed as a bill of exceptions.
The complaint was drawn under section 1, c. 362, p. 652, of the Laws of 1903, and charged the defendant with a violation of said section, in this: That he did, on the Sunday named, publicly sell a quantity of groceries to the complainant. The argument of the defendant as to the construction of the act is this: The supreme court of this state has decided that section 6517, G.S. 1894, did not prohibit the doing of business on Sunday which did not seriously interfere with religious observances of that day by the public. Ward v. Ward, 75 Minn. 269, 77 N.W. 965; Holden v. O'Brien, 86 Minn. 297, 90 N.W. 531. Section 6510, G.S. 1894, is still in force, and hence the proviso in the law of 1903 must be construed in harmony with this section as thus interpreted. That proviso reads as follows:
Provided, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial