Case Name: J. A. Lempke v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-20
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 125
Docket Number: No. 3388
Parties: J. A. Lempke v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
J. A. Lempke v. The State.
No. 3388.
Decided January 20, 1915.
1. —Sunday Law—Moving Pictures—Enhanced Punishment—Information.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the Sunday law by running a moving picture show, the information charged prior convictions of a similar offense following approved precedent, the same was sufficient on motion to quash. Following Lingenfelter v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 30, and other cases. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of bills of exception and a statement of facts, -objections to the charge of the court can not be revised on appeal.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. George FT. Denton.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Sunday law; penalty, a fine of $200.
The opinion states the case.
Ho brief on file for appellant.
Q. L. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The complaint and information charge appellant with violating the Sunday law, in that he ran a moving picture show on Sunday. ,
In order to obtain the enhanced punishment, other clauses were added in the pleadings charging prior convictions of a similar offense. There are two reasons why it is contended the pleading is not sufficient, as well as in failing to charge an offense. Under Muckenfuss v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 216, the complaint and information sufficiently charge prior convictions of similar offenses, and under Lingenfelter v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 30, the opening of a moving picture show on Sunday is an offense. The writer has not agreed with the majority holding" that the opening of a moving picture show on Sunday is a violation of the statute. These matters have been discussed by this court, and the majority have held it to be an offense. The writer has seen no reason to change his views expressed in the dissenting opinion. Under the authority of the above cases the judgment will be affirmed.
There are no bills of exception or statement of facts. The matters urged with reference to the charges therefore can not be intelligently revised.
As the record is presented the judgment will he affirmed.
Affirmed.