. 

-c.- 

--.- 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

~o;crable' Robert F. P&en, Jr. 

county Attoriloy 

~ata~:orda County 

COY City, Texas 

:ear sir: 

authority to ron11 be seeen t&it,. in the case Y:Q 

the Sm*iay upon v;hich the protad w;:as in the very 

Sunday i3zgediutely follo~?:ing or sucoccdi>g tho 

0xpiratIon of the roguli-r tom, 

w>ioithr:l* or the st:i,tuteo above quoted - and 

via baliova t'hey cre all the lnvr enuctcd in this 

. . 
,orable Robert F. Pedon, Jr., PaSo 2 

state bearing directly upon the oubject - tend 

to throw sny light upon the quastlon before 

We turn, therefore, to the oommon law, 

%ause our statute further provides that 

Menover it is found that this Co:e fail: 

to provldo a rule of procedure in any psrtioular atate of case whioh may arise, and is, 

therefore, defeative, ths rules or the common lax shall be applied and govern.’ Past. 

Dig. 8 Art, 2493, 

‘“The subJect is thoroughly and ably discussed in Baxter v. The People, 3 Ill. (Gilm.) 

384, 385, -3’e take the liberty of quoti’ng’ fully from the opinion of Caton, J., delivered in that case, He says: *Had tho 

court the rim to receive the vcrdiot and 

pivnounoo judgment .on Sunday? That courts 

ha-fe no right to pronounce a judgment, or do ~. 

any~ other- aot strictly judicial, on Sunday, 

unless expressly authorized by statute, 

aeems to be too well settled to admit of 

doubt. bv the decisions in En&and and in 

. this country. The leading oaee on this subject is that of Sv.xnn v. ilroxn, 3 Burr,. 

where it was helwthe court of Kina’s 

1595, 

Benoh that the court o ouldnot sit on Sunday 

and give a valid: ju-?gment, it not being a 

judicial day. It appears that anoiently, 

among Christians, courts did sit on Sunday, 

but by a canon of the church made in the year 

517 this was prohibited, and that rule seems 

to have been adopted into the common law, and 

may be considered well settled. Put this 

prohibition seems to be confined to the entering of judgments of record, and other like 

judloinl acts, for vie learn from the opinion 

of lord Uansfiold in the same case that it 

wss assigxd for error in th’e cxohoqitier that 

the information (for engro-sing butter and 

cheese contrary to the stztutc) wcs orhibitcd 

to the court on the 13th day of October, 
Rcsorable Robert 1. Peden, Jr., Page 3 

which in the year (20 Jac. 1) was on Su$y, 

and; therefore, not *dins .iuridicus.” 

question seems to have bean frequently before 

the English courts and the courts of zest of 

the statpa of the Union, and the doclsions 

are very uniform that. a judgment cannot be 

entered of record on Sunday. 3 Thomas’ Coke. 

354; 2 21. COQ. 277; t~acke~.da~~is *, 5 Coke, 

66; Pearce v. Xtvmod, 13 [<ass. 324; Chapmn Y. 

Tne %tat3, 5 Bm (Ind.) 111; N-lbors v. 

The :X&o, 6 Ala. 290; 4 N, 11. 15S;*Authut v. 

?o;b;,;~2Rbb;.;89; Stor:r v. Fllott, 8 Lo\.. 

To thzse authorities we say 

a2d Col?nan v, l?!cnCerscri, Litt, (Xy. ) &l., Gas. 

171;mrxcrker v. The People, 5 i;‘end. 530; - 

Rarpor. v, T’?e htz=t9, ?.+3 Texas, 431. 

Vh3se cases all s-how that a ju:&zatit~ 

entered of rcocrd on Sunday is .not only erroneous, but is absoiutely void. 

*But although the law am=19 to be nell 

settled th?it a judgmnt caimot be entered Of 

record on Sundey, yet I think It equally well 

nettled thzt a verdict of a jury aay be entered of record on Suadu~. See i’ollfYiIin~ authorities: Heidkcppw v. Cotton, 3 Xass. 55; mhtaling 

v. Csbom, 15 Johns. 118. ILtll::>r v. ?nPlisn, 

i6;s (5. c.) 586; & v. Phlnl~Xs. 

. 

Via verdict of’ the jury nay be returned 

and r.ecoived on Sunday. 

370; ?,o:: :er y. XCCOll~, 9 

cOy;l: v. Silcox_, 5 Ind. 

h3, 587; ::ccork& 

y. The Etste, 14 In&. 39; & Y. The i;ta.te, 

14 In;\. 135; Zebbor v. &mill, 34 N. ri. 202; 

Robsrts V. G-3, 5 xun?FEX. ), 558. 

“;‘ie fully OGilCUr in t.he’conclusion BYrived at by the lccrnefi judee in Baxter v. 

Th Pro::le, cxplocsed in thcso xo:ordr;- “;le 

think t&c authGriti*-n clearly establish th::t, 

~AXUI a cause is fxtriitted to the jury before 

twelve of clock 5aiurday nQht, the vcrdiat of 

L. , . J . 

. 
I ‘. .A*/: 1 

.I . 

! 

Honorable Robert F, Poden, Jr., Page 4 

tho jury may be received 03 Sunday; but that 

it 10 not a judicial day for tha purpose of 

rendorinf! any judgment, and if it attempt 

to render a judment, still in law it would 

be no judgment, but absolutely void, and 

will he so declared, and my be revsrsed by 

this oourt. Not that euch reversal will take 

tram it any force or vitality, for ltmvar 

had any, not having been rendered by a court 

having authority to render any 

whatever at this ti.me.1 ,.Ib. 38 i! 

udment 

." 

The .Shearman case, supra, has been followed by the 

Texas Cotit of Criminal Ap 

V, State, (19344) 75 S..W. T 

eals in tha reoent casea .of Bless 

21%) 694 and Guerra v. State, 

(1939) 136 Texas Crlrnlnal Reports 412. i’lo quote from the .. . 

court’s opinion in tho Guerra case a8 follbwsr 

“It appe&s t rom bill of oxcopt ion No. 

1; that the court char&i the jury on Sun- 

.day, &roh .6, 1938, at lr53 P,hL Cho.r&ing 

theJury is strictly a judicikl act. Xoss 

'9, State, 173 S. Yf. 859. Courts havo no 

right to profiounce a judgment; or do any 

other act striotly judlaial., on Sunday, In. 

the absence of a pemisoive otutute. Blono 

V, State, 75 S. W. (Zd) 694; Shearman v. 

St&e, 1 Tex. App. 215, Xe have in this 

state no statute pemltting the jury to be 

charged on Suncay. In Moos0 v, Stato, su;rra, 

the oourt said: ‘Char&n% the jury is Q 

high judicial function, cm1 it cannot be 

lawfully exercisea on Sundtiyrt Ye are constrafnod to hold that reversible error 1s 

presontca.*F 

You arc respeotfully a&vi~;cd that it is the opinion of this deprultmsnt that pleas of E;uilty aoceptad ana 

jU3gien~ts rendered on Sundays .fn misdomanor cases are Invalid.