Case Name: Charles Kirkpatrick v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-16
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 300
Docket Number: No. 5895
Parties: Charles Kirkpatrick v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Charles Kirkpatrick v. The State.
No. 5895.
Decided December 16, 1920.
Sunday Law—Moving Picture—Former Precedent.
Where, upon trial of a violation of Article 302, Penal Code, by exhibiting a moving picture show on Sunday, defendant was convicted and appealed to this court, the case must be affirmed according to former precedent. Following Ex Parte Lingenfelder, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 30, 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 $50.
The opinion states the case.
H. D. Bishop, for appellant.
Cited Zucarro v. State, 197 S. W. Rep., 982; Brunett et al. v. Mann, 151 Federal, 145; U. S. v. Musgrave, 160 id., 700; Ralph v. Kisemeier, 118 N. W. Rep., 277; National Bank of Commerce v. Ripley, 61 S. W. Rep., 587; American Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh, 97 Atlantic, 999; Ex parte Roquemore, 131 S. W. Rep., 1101.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of exhibiting a moving picture show on Sunday in violation of Article 302 P. C.
The questions presented for revision are very interesting, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to be sustained, but the majority of the court have held otherwise on each question. They have been thoroughly discussed by the court as it was constituted at the time the opinion in Ex parte Lingenfelder, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 30, was written, and again in Zucarro v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 1, after the personnel of the court had been changed. Again the questions were reviewed at this term of the court in Hegman v. State, just decided. The writer differed with the majority of the court on those questions, but his views have not obtained.
In obedience to those cases this judgment must be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered. • • -
Affirmed.