The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-07-03
.N0SuNOAY SHOWS
Supreme Court Holds That They
Are Illegal.
Running a Theater Is Labor
Say Justices.
CASE FROM TOPEKA.
An Appeal From Conviction by
Roy Crawford.
Last of De BOissiere Cases Won
by TrOutman & Stone.

The city ordinance of Topeka pro-
viding against labor of any kind on
Sunday are valid and running a thea
ter is labor according to the decision
OF the Kansas supreme court in the
Crawford case today. Roy Crawford
was convicted of working on Sunday
in connection with his superinten-
| dency of the theater and fined in the
district court under the Topeka ordin-
ances. This was a test case and was
| determine the validity of the ordin-
ance and settle the question of wheth-
er or not managing theater was Ia
Dor. The. court settles all of these
points and holds Crawford guilty of
violating the ordinance.
The opinion of the court was writ
ten by Justice Benson. In the sylla-
bus the court says:
ITO keep open, manage and super
intend a theater and sell tickets
| therein on Sunday is labor within the
vides that, Every person who shall
either labor himself or compel his ap-
prentice, servant or any other person
| in his charge or control, to labor or
perform any work other than the
household offices of daily necessity, or
| the first day of the week, commonly
called Sunday, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor.'
The court holds that the ordinance
of the city of Topeka is absolutely val
id. Another point made by the attor-
neys for Crawford was that the exact
date of the offense was not stated but
the court holds that this is immaterial
except that it was committed on Sum-
day. 1 was also claimed that the evil
dence did not show that Crawford
himself worked or that he compelled
his employees to work. The question
decided then was what constituted Ia
Dor. The court cited opinions from
the courts all over the country and af-
ter discussing them to some length the
court says:
The evidence shows that the defen-
dant regularly kept open and sfnar1-
aged his theaters gave orders and di-
rections to the employees on and about
| the stage and to the drivers in his en-
ploy who received from and returned
to the railroad stations the baggage,
scenery and paraphernalia of the
| travelling troupes and that he sold the
tickets for exhibition on Sunday.
| These manifold duties necessarily re-
required some manual labor. although
! not of the kind usually classes as toll
| some within the meaning of the stat
utes such as those first referred to
| and sell wares therein is the common
| labor of a merchant it is fair to say
| that to keep open, manage and super
f! intend a theater and sell tickets therein
! is the labor of such manager and If we
keep in mind the object of these regu-
| lations we will see that the reason OF
the rule applies quite as forcibly to the
| theatrical manager as to the mer-
chant.
| The court found but one court decis-
\ ion of a precise nature as this one
| This was the suit of the state of Ar
| kansas against Quarles Quarles was
| found managing a theater and the Ar
| kansas court held that opening. super
| intending and managing public thea
ter. giving a theatrical entertainment
and selling tickets therefor was labol
within the meaning of the statute ane
| the conviction was affirmed. In con
| clusion the court says:
| MANY decisions have been made up
| on the general subject and they ma,
not all be in perfect harmony. but WI
| hold in accord with those quoted abov'
| that the defendant in managing hi
theater, selling tickets and performin,
the work on Sunday charged in tn
complaint and proven in the trial vio
lated the ordinance. 1t is not neces
| sarily to inquire whether in employing
and directing the work of laborers II
and about the theater he compelled
them to labor within the meaning
|