### .

-c.-
--.- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN

~o;crable' Robert F. P&en, Jr. county Attoriloy ~ata~:orda County COYCity, Texas

:ear sir:

authority to ron11 be seeent&it,. in the case Y:Q the Sm*iay upon v;hich the protad w;:asin 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 Weturn, therefore, to the oommonlaw, %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 mayarise, and is, therefore, defeative, ths rules or the commonlax shall be applied and govern.’ Past. Dig. 8Art, 2493,

‘“The subJect is thoroughly and ably discussed in Baxter v. The People, 

### 3Ill. (Gilm.) 384, 385, -3’e take the liberty of quoti’ng’fully from the opinion of Caton, J., delivered in that case, He says: *Hadtho court the rim to 

### receive the vcrdiot and pivnounoo judgment .on Sunday? That courts ha-feno 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.xnnv. ilroxn, 

### 3Burr,. where it was helwthe court of Kina’s 1595, Benohthat the court oouldnot sit on Sunday andgive avalid: ju-?gment, it not being a judicial day. It appears that anoiently, amongChristians, courts did sit on Sunday, but by a canon of the church madein the year 517 this was prohibited, and that rule seems to have been adopted into the commonlaw, and maybe considered well settled. Put this prohibition seems to be confined to the entering of judgments of record, and other like judloinl acts, 

### for vielearn 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. 3Thomas’ 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?nanv, l?!cnCerscri, Litt, (Xy. ) &l., Gas. 171;mrxcrker v. The People, 5i;‘end. 

### 530; - Rarpor. v, T’?e htz=t9, 

### ?.+3Texas, 

### 431.
Vh3se cases all s-howthat a ju:&zatit~ entered of rcocrd on Sunday is .not only erroneous, but is absoiutely void.
*But although the law am=19to be nell settled th?it ajudgmnt caimot be entered Of record on Sundey, yet I think It equally well nettled thzt averdict of a jury aay be entered of record on Suadu~. See **i ’** **ollfYiIin~** authorities: Heidkcppw v. Cotton, 3Xass. 

### 55; mhtaling v. Csbom, 15 Johns. 118. ILtll::>rv. ?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~, 9cOy;l:v. Silcox_, 

### 5 Ind. 

### h3, 587; ::ccork& y. The Etste, 14 

### In&. 39; & Y. The i;ta.te, 14In;\. 135; Zebbor v. &mill, 34 N. ri. 202; Robsrts **V.** G-3, 5xun?FEX. ), 

### 558.



### “;‘ie fully OGilCUr in t.he’conclusion BYrived at by the lccrnefi judee in Baxter v. xo:ordr;- Th Pro::le, cxplocsed in thcso “;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 .

.‘

. .A*/: 

# I 1 .I

.

**!** Honorable Robert F, Poden, Jr., Page 

### 4

tho jury maybe received 03 Sunday; but that it 10 not a judicial day for tha purpose of rendorinf! anyjudgment, 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. 

### 38i! udment 

### ."
The.Shearmancase, supra, has been followed by the Texas Cotit of Criminal Ap V, State, 

### (19344) 75 S..W. Teals in tha reoent casea .of Bless 21%)

### 694 and Guerra v. State, (1939) 

### 136 Texas Crlrnlnal Reports 412. i’loquote from the

.. . court’s opinion in tho Guerra case a8 follbwsr

“It appe&s trombill 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; Shearmanv. 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.