The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-30
MAY PLAY BALL.
Judge Hazen Decides the Sun
day Question.
Law Does Not Apply to Athletic
Sports.
ONLY TO ONE CLASS.
This Includes Only Games That
Are DemOraIizing.
Case Against DIR. Schrant Is
Ordered Dismissed.


of Sunday baseball in the district
court this morning. The question
came before the court on a motion
to quash the complaint under which
DR.. John Schrant, of the Topeka
Saints. was arrested on the charge of
playing baseball on Sunday, July "a.
Judge Hazen sustained the motion to
quash-
The motion was made on the
ground that the complaint, charging
the defendant with playing baseball,
did not name an offense, as the Kan
sas law against cock fighting, horse
racing. etc, on Sunday does not name,
nor include, baseball as an offense.
The question can be taken to the
supreme court on an appeal from
Judge Hazen's decision on the mo-
ton to quash.
Judge Hazen's Decision.
Judge Hazen's decision is as fol-
lows:
THE defendant was arrested upon
a-charge of playing baseball on sun
day A motion to quash the fnforma-
tfon has been filed upon the ground
that il does not constitute a crime to
play baseball on Sunday, and this
under our statute. the playing of
baseball on Sunday constitutes a
crime.
section 225S, general statutes of
fendant is prosecuted, reads as fol-
lows: Every person who shall be
convicted of horse racing, cock fight
ing or playing at cards or game of any
kind on the first day of the week
commonly called Sunday, shall be
deemed guilty of a nisdemeanor and
fined not exceeding fifty dollars
The state contends that this stat
ute not only prohibits the playing of
baseball. but that II prohibits the
playing of all games of every kind
on Sunday. 1t is contended on be-
half of the defendant that this statute
does not include the playing of base
ball and like games. If the expression
in the section or game of any kind is
10 be construed according to the lit
eral meaning of the words. then the
playing of any game of any kind, no
difference how innocent 1t may be or
by whom or under what circum-
stances played, would constitute an
Offense. On the other hand, if the
general rule of construction which the
courts universally apply to a statute
of this kind is to be roffowed, then IT
must be given a limited meaning and
construed to prohibit horse racing,
cock fighting, playing at cards or
games of similar character.
In the construction of a statute the
court should arrive at the intent of the
legislature. if. possible. but in doing so
must apply general rules for that pur-
pose. 1t cannot be successfully con-
tended that the legislature intended by
this section to prohibit the playing of
all games irrespective of the nature of
the game, whether they are universally
known TO be innocent or known to be
immoral or demoralizing in their ten
dency. If ii is determined tnat the leg
islature did not intend by this section
to prohibit all games, then the court
must determine by the ordinary rules
of construction what particular games
or class of games were intended to be
prohibited.
The Missouri Law.
Section 1850 of the Revised Statutes
of Missouri is Identical with our statute
on this subject. and the courts of that
state have constructed that section. In
the case of St. Louis Agricultural and
Mechanical association VS.. Delano ct al,
81 Mo App. 2S4, the court says. among
otner things: No statute has been
pointed out to US which prohibits in
terms an exhibition of athletic games
and sports on Sunday. and we know OF
the existence of no such statute. Sec
tion 1850 prohibits horse racing, cock
fighting. playing at cards or games of
any kind on the first day of the week
commonly called Sunday but this court
is of the opinion that this prohibition
is against games of chance or other
games of an immoral tendency and that
il does not involve a prohibition of ath- |
letic games OF sports which are not of
an immoral tendency but which tend |
TO the physical development of the
youth and are rather to be encouraged !
than discourse ged. Penal statutes are
10 be strictly construed. 1t is an estab- |
lished principle of construction that |
where general words follow partic- |
ular ones they are to be construed as |
applicable to things or persons partic- |
ularly named In a recent work of /
great merit the word game is defined /
to be a device or play. the terms of /
which are that the winner shall receive I
something of value from the loser; the /
act of playing a game for stakes. In /
Portis VS.. State, q Ark. 1853, gaming is /
said to be a risking of money between |
two or more persons on a contest or |
chance of any kind. where one must |
be loser and the otner must be gamer !
Many other decisions emphasizing the |
principle that by the word game and |
gaming are understood the PLAYING or
upon chance or in which chance is an |
element. The word game is undoubt- |
edly susceptible of being used in 4 |
sense large enough to embrace any con-
triv4nce or institution intended to fur |
nish sport, recreation or amusement !
but this is not it's usual understood |
meaning when employed in a statute |
which constitutes it an indictable Of |
fense. In such a case 1t is usually un- |
derstood to imply some species of gam
bling. We are, therefore. of the opinion
that the games prohibited by section |
1880 of the revised statutes are gam
bling games and not athletic games
and sports
This opinion was rendered by
Judge Thompson of the court of ap-
peais of St. Louis. who is jurist of
national reputation. The case was
taken to the supreme court of Mis-
souri, and there decided as reported
in los Mo-, page 217-
Aimed at DemOraIiZing Games.
I'm discussing this statute the su-
preme court says: But these prohi- |
bitions are evidently leveled against