Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-11-26
SUNDAY LAW CASE.
Trial Held-Ths Jury Disagree-Is it a
Hotel or Tavern2

The Sunday-law case known as The People
vs. C. w. Harvey, of Gait, was tried before
Justice Coggins- with jury. in the Superior
Courtroom, Department Two, yesterday
afternoon. District Attorney FL. L. Buckley
conducted the case upon the part of the peo-
ple. and Freeman & Bates and J. 81. Harris
| appeared for the defendant. The jury was
composed of George Landop, Thomas L..
Aeoek, Geo. W. Slyter, A. Peltier, B.
Ehiers, Martin Devine, T. G. Salisbury p.
! CLARK, H. Weinstock, o. ?. Dodge, E. G..
| Ferguson and Sims Emory. The charge
against defendant, which was sworn to by
| Mrs. John G.. Rae, is as follows That on
the 9th day of November, 1881, and within
| Dry Creek township. in the county of
| Sacramento in the State Of California, the
| defendant, Q. W. Harvey, did then and there,
! in his hotel, in the town of Calf, in said
township. keep open ard conduct the bar sit
| uate and being in the Office and sitting-room
Of said hotel. and did at said bar sell liquor
aud cigars on said day. Said bar is also the
otncs counter OF said hotel, and fireplace where
the books OF said hotel are kept-contrary to
the form, force and eject OF the statute in such
case made and provided aud against the
peace and dignity of the people of the State
! of California" The charge is drawn under
laonly referred TO as " the Sunday law" and
which are as follows:
Section 800. Every person who keeps open
on Sunday any store, workshop, bar, saloon,
banking. house. or other place Of business, for
the purpose of transacting business therein, is
punishable by fine, not less than So nor more
than $50.
Section 301. The provisional OF the preceding
section do notapply to persons who, on Sunday.
T~aa. loFo hoo Iir,r,- har
shops, baths, markets, restaurants, taverns, liv-
cry stables, or retail drug stores, for the legiti
mate business of each, or such manufacturing
establishments as are usually kept in con-
tinued operati.n; provided, that the preced
ing section shall apply TO persons keeping
open barber-shops, bath houses, and hair
dressing saloons after L o'clock N. on Sun
day.
The evidence for the prosecution upon the
trial was to the effect that the defendant
kept his bar open upon Sunday the same as
upon other days. This was not refuted by
testimony of defendants witnesses, but evil
dencs was given to show that the bar was in
the sitting-room, and that the sale of liquors
and cigars, or furnishing them to customers,
was one part of the business of the hotel. or
tavern, and Of others, as generally kept in this
State through the country, and that while
business might be carried on without a bar,
IL Hcu4u D6 4lHCA teS- pIOIl5iDIcs
The case as presented by counsel for de-
Tense, upon argument, was that hotels and
tayerns were exempt under the statute, and
that if it could be claimed that bar-room
was not necessarily or legally part of hotel,
it was included by the word tavern, which is
described by Webster to be " hotel, usually
licensed to sell liquors in small quantities"
Under this definition and a case reported in
the Georgia Reports, of similar interpreta-
= Ill IT. Al
the exception of teverns from the statute
and h-nce defendant had legal right to keep
his bar open upon Sunday the same as any
other day.
Upon the other hand, the District Attor.
ney claimed that the definition Of Webster
was not Of legal significance, and that the
case cited was upon an ancient law unlike the
statute OF this State; that if the bar could
be hsld to be part of the business of the
hotel or tavern in legal sense, then the bar
room could be kept by the hotel pro-
distance even from the hotel or tav-
ern, and yet be held to be part
of it, because the proprietor claimed it to be
so. This the District Attorney said would
be absurd. He also claimed that the object
OF the Legislature could not have been to
prohibit saloon-keepers from selling upon
Sunday, and permit an open bar to be kept
at full tide in an adjoining building simply
because it was in hotel or tavern, or was
clsimed to be part of one.
The Court, in his charge to the jury, andin
response to a question by one OF the jury
men, charged that if they found that the
house kept by the defendant was hotel,
then, as he viewed the law, they would find
the defendant guilty, but if the public house
he kept was included within the term
tavern" then he would not be guilty.
unable to agree, and were discharged. It is
understood that six of the jury claimed that
the place kept by defendant is s. hotel, and
the other six that it is tavern"