Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/318/418.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:49:44+00:00

Document:
LARGENT v. STATE OF TEX.
On Appeal from the County Court of Lamar County, Texas.
Mr. Justice FREED delivered the opinion of the Court.
A complaint in the Corporation Court of Paris charged Mrs. Largent, the appellant, with violating this ordinance by unlawfully offering books for sale without making application for a permit. She was convicted and appealed to the County Court of Lamar County, Texas, where a trial de novo was had. 2 There a motion was filed to quash the [318 U.S. 418, 420] complaint because the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and at the conclusion of the evidence, there was filed a motion on the same grounds for a finding of not guilty and the discharge of the appellant from custody. Both were overruled.
Appellant's evidence shows that she carries a card of ordination from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, an organization incorporated for the purpose of preaching the Gospel of God's Kingdom. The Society is an organization for Jehovah's Witnesses, an evangelical group, founded upon and drawing inspiration from the tenets of Christianity. The Witnesses spread their teachings under the direction of the Society by distributing the books and pamphlets obtained from the Society by house to house visits. They believe that they have a covenant with Jehovah to enlighten the people as to the truths accepted by the Witnesses by putting into their hands, for study, various religious publications with titles such as Children, Hope, Consolation, Kingdom News, Deliverance, Government and Enemies.
Mrs. Largent offered some of these books to those upon whom she called for a contribution of not to exceed 25 cents for a bound book and several magazines or tracts. If the contribution was not made, the appellant, in accordance with the custom of the Witnesses, would frequently leave a book and tracts without receiving any money. Appellant was making such distributions when arrested. She had not filed an application for or received a permit under the ordinance.
The Witnesses look upon their work as christian and charitable. To them it is not selling books or papers but accepting contributions to further the work in which they are engaged. The prosecuting officer contended that the offer of the publications and the acceptance of the [318 U.S. 418, 421] money was a solicitation or sale of books, wares or merchandise. At the conclusion of the hearing, which was without a jury, the judge found appellant guilty of violating the ordinance of the City of Paris and fined her one hundred dollars.
The appeal was brought here under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a), which provides for review of a final judgment of the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had. By our order of December 21, 1942, 63 S.Ct. 325, 87 L.Ed. --, we requested counsel to discuss whether this judgment could be fully reviewed on this record by a higher state court by habeas corpus or other proceeding. Under the statutes of Texas, no appeal lies from the judgment of the County Court imposing a fine of this amount. Vernon's Texas St.1936, Article 53 (Code of Criminal Procedure);3 Ex parte Largent, Tex.Cr.App., 162 S.W.2d 419, 421, and cases cited. The appellant, under Texas practice, apparently could test by habeas corpus the constitutionality on its face of the ordinance under which she was convicted but may not use that writ to test the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to the act of distributing religious literature. Cf. Ex parte Largent, supra. Since there is by Texas law or practice, no method which has been called to our attention for reviewing the conviction of appellant, on the record made in the county court, we are of the opinion the appeal is properly here under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code. The proceeding in the county court was a distinct suit. It disposed of the charge. The possibility that the appellant might obtain release by a subsequent and dis- [318 U.S. 418, 422] tinct proceeding, and one not in the nature of a review of the pending charge, in the same or a different court of the State does not affect the finality of the existing judgment or the fact that this judgment was obtained in the highest state court available to the appellant. Cf. Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 14 , 52 S.Ct. 103, 105, 78 A.L.R. 826; People of State of New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 70 , 49 S.Ct. 61, 64, 62 A.L.R. 785.
[ Footnote 4 ] Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 447 , 451 S., 58 S.Ct. 666, 668; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 157 , 163 S., 60 S.Ct. 146, 149, 151; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 302 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 902, 128 A.L.R. 1352.
[ Footnote 5 ] Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 570 , 571 S., 62 S. Ct. 766, 768; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352; Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 , 45 S.Ct. 625.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.