{
  "id": 1329194,
  "name": "Petty v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Petty v. State",
  "decision_date": "1893-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ark. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326149
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Gray, 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gray",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ala. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        11256523
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/29/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N. H. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "case_ids": [
        2351329
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nh/19/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Am. Rep. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Conn. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        6754151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/18/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Gray, 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gray",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Gray, 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gray",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.693158918642849e-07,
      "percentile": 0.892569026225081
    },
    "sha256": "7a1ff87f28cdfbd9fbbd9ab0c1c2fc322b00c31991696d285b735d73697eff86",
    "simhash": "1:489346b2061d48b0",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:41:42.064450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mansfield, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Petty v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PowEEE, J.\nAt the January term, 1893, the appellant, N. B. Petty, was indicted by the grand jury of White county, charged with the crime of Sabbath breaking by keeping open a store on the 12th day of June, 1892, in said county, and upon trial was found guilty, and appealed to this court.\nThe evidence of the only witness shows that the appellant, in the year 1892, was eng'aged in selling meats and also vegetables in their season; that he occupied a latticed building which had doors and locks thereon; that witness was in the employ of appellant; that he helped appellant sell meats and vegetables for about three months in the summer of the year 1892 ; and that the shop was open every Sunday during that time. The place is designated by witness as a butcher shop.\nIt is contended by counsel for appellant that the keeping open this shop does not come within the inhibition of the statute (sec. 1887 Mansfield\u2019s Digest, as amended by the act of the General Assembly, March 2, 1885), which is as follows: \u201cEvery person who shall, on Sunday, keep open any store or retail any goods, wares and merchandise, or keep open any dram shop or grocery, or who shall keep the doors of the same so as to afford ingress or egress, or retail or sell any spirits or wine, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars.\u201d\nWebster\u2019s International Dictionary gives the following' definitions to \u201cshop\u201d and \u201cstore:\u201d \u201cShop. A building or an apartment in which goods, wares, drugs, etc., are sold by retail. Synonymous with store, warehouse.\u201d \u201cStore. Any place where goods are sold, whether by wholesale or retail; a shop.\u201d Anderson\u2019s Dictionary of Daw gives the following definition of shop: \u201cAplace kept and used for the sale of goods. In this country shops for the sale of goods are frequently called stores.\u201d Rapalje & Lawrence\u2019s Law Dictionary defines store as synonymous with shop. These definitions are supported by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the cases of the Commonwealth v. Riggs, 14 Gray, 378; Commonwealth v. Annis, 15 Gray, 199. Barth v. State, 18 Conn. 432; Wilson v. State, 24 id. 57; Browne\u2019s Judicial Interpretations, under the word \u201cshop,\u201d page 419.\nAccording to these definitions, the names \u201cshop\u201d and \u201cstore\u201d maybe used interchangeably, and although the indictment' charges the appellant with keeping open a store and the witness denominates it a butcher shop, in common parlance the meaning is the same. The evidence shows the place kept open and called a shop by the witness was a place kept for the sale of meats and vegetables, which are merchandise when kept for sale; and the second clause of the statute, \u201cor retail any goods, wares or merchandise,\u201d taken in connection with the first clause, shows that the word store, the keeping open of which is prohibited, is that place where goods, wares and merchandise are sold. We therefore hold that the place kept open, as shown by the evidence, comes within the inhibition of the statute, and affirm the judgment.\nMansfield, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PowEEE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The appellant fro se.",
      "James P. Clarke, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Petty v. State.\nOpinion delivered June 3, 1893.\nSunday \u2014 Keeping open store.\nKeeping open a butcher shop and selling meats and vegetables from it on Sunday is a violation of Mansfield\u2019s Digest, sec. 1887, as amended by act March 2,188S, imposing a fine on \u201cevery person who shall, on Sunday, keep open any store or retail any goods, wares and merchandise.\u201d\nAppeal from White Circuit Court.\nGrant Green, Jr., Judge.\nThe appellant fro se.\nThe word store has a well defined and understood signification, which is broader than the word shof. The words are not synonymous. See 45 Ark. 348 ; 25 Am. Rep. 646 ; 19 N. H. 135 ; 29 Ala. 651; 2 Am. Cr. Rep. 47\u00d3; 3 Cr. Law. Mag. 640. The legislature never made it a crime to keep open a shof, unless it was in fact a store.\nJames P. Clarke, Attorney General, for appellee.\nIn common parlance \u201cshop\u201d and \u201cstore\u201d mean about the same thing. See Webster, Int. Die.; Anderson, Law Die.; 14 Gray, 378; 15 id. 199; Browne, Jud. Int. Words. Our statute requires that words shall be taken in their common acceptation. 56 Ark. 386."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 21,
  "last_page_order": 23
}