Case Name: Charles Derrick v. State of Ohio
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1918-03-27
Citations: 30 Ohio C.C. Dec. 577
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Derrick v. State of Ohio.
Judges: Jones, Gorman, and Hamilton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 30
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
SUNDAY LAWS.
[Hamilton (1st) Court of Appeals,
March 27, 1918.]
Jones, Gorman and Hamilton, JJ.
Charles Derrick v. State of Ohio.
Keeping Butcher Shops Open on Sunday not Work of Necessity.
The keeping open of a place for the sale of meat on Sunday, In a thickly populated district where the people are of the tenement class and not financially able to provide themselves with ice boxes or other means for preserving meats, where such opening occurs during that part of the year when the weather is sufficiently cold to preserve meat and other vegetables, is not a work of necessity and, therefore, does not fall within the exception provided in Sec. 12045 G. C.
Miller & Foster, for plaintiff in error.
H. J. S'iebenthaler and E. S. Morrissey, Asst. Pros., for defendant in error.
Motion to certify overruled by the Supreme Court July 16, 1918.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The case here presented involves a charge of the violation of Sec. 13044 G. C. providing against the keeping open of a place for the transaction of business, upon the first day of the week commonly called Sunday.
The specific charge is that the defendant unlawfully and knowingly caused to be open for the transaction of business, to-wit, the sale of meats, a certain place in the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton, county, Ohio.
Defendant was tried and convicted in the municipal court erf Cincinnati, without the intervention of a jury.
The defendant contends that the keeping open of the place for the sale of meats was a work of necessity, and came within the exception provided in Sec. 13045 6. C. and that it was made such a work of necessity by the fact that the place was located in a thickly populated tenement district of the city where the inhabitants were not able financially to maintain ice-boxes or other methods of preserving meats.
The evidence discloses that the transaction took place in January, and the court is of the opinion that at that season of the year it can not be considered such a work of necessity, as the nature of the weather is such that it is not a difficult matter to preserve meats — the court taking judicial notice of the fact that at that time of the year the weather is sufficiently cold to preserve meat and other food stuffs. We therefore hold that under the evidence this was not such a work of necessity as would avoid liability under the statute.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Jones, Gorman, and Hamilton, JJ., concur.