The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-16
The Sunday law.


The following opinion Of Judge Clark, Of
tho Court Of Appeals, delivered Saturday, Is
given in full, md settles construction Of the
Sunday law not heretofore finally passed
uponi
Conrad Albrecht VS.. the State. From llar-
ria county. Tho obvious intention Of the
Legislature, MS manifested in article 1876 Of
the penal code, WINS to prevent altogether the
barter and sale OF merchandise
on Sunday, and to prohibit
all merchants, groccrs, dcnlers in
wares or merchandise, or traders in my law
full business whatsoever, from desecrating
the Sabbath, and distractng with their wo-
cations the pence and quiet of other portion $
of the community, who might desire rom
religious or other considerations 10 devote
the day TO the worship Of God and to entire
rest from their daily employments. Thispur
pose so manifest, can not be disregarded in the
search for proper rule for construction, but
must BIO given effect TO- unless qualified or
restricted by some potent provision Of law
rendering a contrary construction imperh-
tive. If reasonable construction of the
language would tend to etlectupte this pur-
pose, and another construction equally rs
reasonable would have a contrary ten
dency, under well established opnons
of construction, courts should
not hesitate in choosing the former to the
exclusion of the latter Intention frequently
controls express language in the construction
of u statute. Walker Vs. State, ". App,
PAST
If, in the adoption of this article, it was the
intention ofthe Legislature to prohibit simply
the opening of stores, saloons, and other sim
liar establishments on Sunday, 1t is reasonable
TO suppose that exact language to that eff
feet would have been employed, especially in
view Of the fact that the statutes Of many of
our sister States upon the same subject de-
nounce penalty only for opening or keeping
open such establishments on the Lords day,
and not for sales made after opening. And if
that was the act aimed at in view ofother leg
isation found in the code, it is more than
likely that the lawmaking power would have
provided that each Sunday an establishment
was kept open should constitute one otlense,
as is the case with fiensive trades, practicing
medicine unlawfully, and entrapping fish wi h
seins, nets, ct :, IN certain seasons. L. "
arts. 9S7, 397, 424. The statute prohibits
selling or bsrtering on Sunday, and each act
of sale or barter is. in itsoli, an oitense, as
much so rs any other act made penal by law,
and for each act of sale or barter an indie
pendent prosecution will lie, and the court
below did not err in so holding.
The indictment is deemed sufficient
Since the decision in Koran VS.. the State, "a
Texas 16l, it has not been deemed an abso-
Lutte requisite that the indictment should des-
cribe the ofiense charged with such particu-
larity, as to entirely supersede proof of its
identity, when the judgment is pleaded in
bar to a second prosecution. As said in that
case "such degree of certainty would often
be impracticable, and has never been in the
enforcement Of this ruli at common law, re-
quired in the higher grades of oifonses."
Judgment affirmed