Lempke v. State
J. A. Lempke v. the State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.