Case Name: J. M. Ealey v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-10-13
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 648
Docket Number: No. 5828
Parties: J. M. Ealey v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 648–651

Head Matter:
J. M. Ealey v. The State.
No. 5828.
Decided October 13, 1920.
1. —Sunday Law—Precedent.
"Where, upon trial of a violation of the Sunday Law, practically every question involved had been settled by prior decisions of this court, there was no reversible error. Following Zucarro v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 1; and other cases.
2. —Sam»—Subterfuge—Violation of Law.
Where the defendant was in the employ of the owner of the picture show during the week, but on Sunday was acting for a certain picture show company who had made some character or agreement with the moving picture show proprietor and sent to each show on Sundays a man to operate its reels, all of which was an attempt to evade the law, defendant was liable.
3. —Same—Argument of Counsel.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the Sunday Law, the evidence supported the conviction and the trial court instructed the jury not to consider improper remarks of State’s counsel, there was no reversible error.
4. —Same—Accomplice—Rehearing—Refusal of Requested Charge.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the Sunday Law, the owner of the picture show, who was an accomplice, testified more favorably for the defendant than the latter himself, and such accomplice’s testimony was not favorable to the State, there was no reversible error in refusing the requested charge upon the corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony. Following Mosley v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 580, and other cases. Besides, there was no question of defendant’s guilt, following Bailey v. State, 150 S. W. Rep., 915. ' .
5. —Same—Complaint—Information. „
Where the complaint charged the defendant with keeping open on Sunday a place of public amusement, to wit, a theater, there was no error in overruling a motion to quash.
6. —Same—Agent—Principal—Sunday Law.
Under Article 302, Penal Code, the agent or employee of the owner ot a motion picture is criminally liable when he opens or keeps open'such place of business on Sunday.
7. —Same—Filing Complaint on Sunday.
Where defendant moved to quash the complaint because it was filed on Sunday, the same was correctly overruled. Following Lindsay v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 468.
8. —Same—Complaint—Assistant County Attorney.
Where the complaint was taken before the assistant county attorney without reference being made to the county attorney, a motion to quash on this ground was correctly overruled. Following Dane v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 86, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Honorable J. P. Jones.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Sunday Law; penalty, a fine of fifty dollars.
The opinion states the case.
C. C. McDonald, Mathis & Caldwell, Heyser, Hicks & Wilson, and Harvey Harris, for appellant.
On question of motion to quash; Olive v. State, 144 S. W. Rep., 605; Ex Parte Roqemore, 131 id., 1101.
On question of refusal of special charge: Strong v. State, 105 S. W. Rep., 785; Oliver v. State, supra; Lott v. State, 127 S. W. Rep., 191; Denman v. State, 178 S. W. Rep., 333; Busch v. State, 155 S. W. Rep., 554; Dooms v. State, 178 S. W. Rep., 334.
On question of argument of counsel: Salri v. State, 189 S. W. Rep., 149.
On question of carving: Tompkins v. State, 90 S. W. Rep., 1019.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of argument of counsel: Collins v. State, 148 S. W. Rep., 1071; Himmelfarb v. State, 174 S. W. Rep., 589; Leech v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 339; Alexander v. State, 40 id., 404.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Wichita County, of keeping open a moving picture show on Sunday, and fined $50. Practically every question of interest in this case has been discussed and settled by prior holdings of this Court, with which the writer agrees as far as is necessary to any decision upon the facts of the instant ease. See Zucarro v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 1, 197 S. W. Rep., 982; Ex parte Lingenfelter, 142 S. W. Rep., 555.
An ordinary moving picture show was kept open on Sunday, in entire violation of the forbiddance of the statute laws of this State. Appellant operated the reel by which the films were projected upon the canvas. One Pois owned the show, and was present, directing and managing it in general. Appellant was in the employ of Pois during the week, but on Sunday was acting as a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of- the U. S. and C. It seems that this concern made some character of agreement with the moving picture show proprietors, and sent to each show on Sundays a man to operate its reel. The evident intent of such an arrangement was to thereby attempt to evade the law. Appellant was the employee of Pois, the owner, and was liable. Several special charges were asked, but we see no error in the trial court's action in refusing the same.
The complaint of the language of the prosecuting attorney, is without merit. The argument was manifestly improper, but the trial court at once instructed the jury not to consider such remarks. If there was any doubt as to the evidence not sufficiently supporting the verdict, the- question might be different. Nothing appears in the record save every evidence of a flagrant effort to trample on the law.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.