{ "id": 1322252, "name": "Quarles v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Quarles v. State", "decision_date": "1891-10-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "10", "last_page": "12", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 Ark. 10" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "119 Ind., 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1309022 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/119/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ohio, 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "33 Ind., 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1481375 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/33/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ind., 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1450520 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/4/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Barb., 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 5001736 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/25/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark., 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882946 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark., 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 Pick., 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 So. Rep., 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 Ind., 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1452098 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/16/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Hun, 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Pa. C. C., 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 Ark., 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ark., 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1879276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/31/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 323, "char_count": 4247, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.8860544914910754e-07, "percentile": 0.9011048520589424 }, "sha256": "562500415b46a9d8541c732aeaa534d6d1b160c80d7252221947c0b548a93cd2", "simhash": "1:3d89fe06fcab6e2a", "word_count": 734 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:46:22.231955+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Quarles v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hughes, J.\nThe appellant was convicted upon an indictment in which he is charged with a violation of section 1883 of Mansfield\u2019s Digest, which provides that \u201cEvery person, who shall on the Sabbath or Sunday be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or to-perform other services than customary household duties', of daily necessity, comfort or charity, on conviction thereof,, shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense.\u201d There were two counts in the indictment, in the first of which the charge is that \u201c the said H. C. Quarles, on the 30th day of November, 1890, said day being Sunday, unlawfully was found laboring, to wit: Selling theater tickets,, said labor-then and there being other than customary household-duties of daily necessity, comfort or charity.\u201d In the second count the appellant is charged with \u201c laboring on Sunday by managing and superintending the Capital Theater for the purpose of producing and having produced a certain play and performance in said Capital Theater,\u201d etc.\nThe case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts that.\u201cthe defendant is the manager of the Capital Theater, where theatrical exhibitions are given for profit, and, at the time and place mentioned in the indictment, did open said Capital Theater, and did give a public theatrical entertainment therein, and did sell tickets and manage and superintend said exhibition.\u201d\nThe appellant asked the court to declare the law to be that \u201c the opening, superintending and managing a public theater, giving a theatrical entertainment, and selling tickets therefor, is not labor within the meaning of section 1883 of Mansfield\u2019s Digest.\u201d This the court' refused to do ; as we think, very properly. The appellant excepted and appealed.\nThe only question presented here is: Did the acts charged and admitted to have been performed constitute labor, within the meaning of the statute ? It was decided in Tucker v. West, 29 Ark., 401, that the execution of a promissory note oh Sunday was a violation- of the statute, and that the note was therefore illegal and void. This was approved in Stewart v. Davis, 31 Ark., 518, where a contract by a livery stable keeper to hire a horse on Sunday was decided to be in violation of the statute and void.' In the case of State v. Frederick, 45 Ark., 348, it was decided that the usual 'services of a barber in shaving, hair cutting, etc., amount to labor within the meaning of the statute. The cases of Tucker v. West and Stewart v. Davis were put on the :ground that the acts done were in violation of the spirit and -intention of the statute. In the case at bar the acts done were in violation of the letter of the statute, as they, in the opinion of the court, constituted laboring on Sunday, within the meaning of the statute.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hughes, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. M. Rose for appellant.", "W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, and Chas. T. Coleman for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Quarles v. State.\nDecided October 17, 1891.\nSabbath br\u00e9aking\u2014Theaters.\nThe manager of -a public theater who sells tickets for and superintends an entertainment therein on Sunday is guilty of \u201claboring on Sunday, within the meaning^of sec. 1883 of Mansf. Dig.\nAPPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court.\nRobert J. Lea, Judge.\nJ. M. Rose for appellant.\nThe words of sec. 1883, Mansf. Dig., are not wide enough to cover a Sunday theater or place of amusement. Sabbath breaking is not a common law offense. 2 Chitty, Cr. Law, 20. As the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Bish., St. Cr., secs. 216, 218. The word used is \u201clabor,\u201d which has a legal technical meaning, and the statute was not intended to include amusements. 5 Pa. C. C., 10; 35 Hun, 327; 16 Ind., 396; 7 So. Rep., 223; 22 Weekly Law Bulletin, 323. These cases show that offenses must come clearly within the statute to be embraced in it.\nW. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, and Chas. T. Coleman for appellee.\nThe statute is both penal and remedial, and should not be construed so strictly as to defeat its obvious intention. 8 Pick., 373 ; Suth. Stat. Constr., sec. 348; 29 Ark., 400. The acts set forth in the agreed statement clearly constitute a. laboring on the Sabbath, within the meaning of the law. See 29 Ark., 386; 31 id., 520; 45 id., 348 ; 25 Barb., 341;. 4 Ind., 619 ; 33 Ind., 201; 15 Ohio, 241 ; 119 Ind., 379." }, "file_name": "0010-01", "first_page_order": 34, "last_page_order": 36 }