TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Conger

State v. Conger, 14 Ind. 396 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 7, 1860
Judges
Davison, Riam
Citations
14 Ind. 396
Headnotes
Gaming is not an act of common labor or usual avocation witbin the prohibition of the Sunday law.
Summary
APPEAL from the Ripley Court of Common Pleas.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Davison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Davison, J.

Information for violation of the Sabbath. The charge is, that the defendant, on the 5th of July, 1857, at, &c., was then and there unlawfully found at common labor and engaged in his usual avocation, by then and there playing and betting at a certain game of cards with Lewis L. Thomas and John Risinger, for the sum of twenty-five cents, the said common labor not being the work of necessity or charity, &c.

Motion to quash the information sustained, and the state excepted.

The statute upon which this prosecution is based, declares that if any person, &c., shall be found on the first *397 day of the week, commonly called Sunday, rioting, hunting, fishing, quarreling, at common labor, or engaged in his usual avocations, works of charity and necessity excepted, &c., he shall be fined, &c. Acts of 1855, p. 159.

G. Durbif, for the state.

The appellee, in support of the action of the Court, assumes that gaming is not an act of common labor or a usual avocation, within the purview of the statute. This construction seems to be correct. Gaming is an offense defined by statutory law—it is a criminal act—the doing of which on any day of the week is forbidden; and it seems to us that an act thus forbidden cannot be held an act of common labor or of usual avocation, because the ordinary sense in which these phrases are understood will not allow them to be so construed. In our opinion, the terms common labor and usual avocation, as used in the statute, intend such acts of labor or business as may be performed on days of the week usually devoted to secular business in the pursuit of a lawful employment. Such acts of common labor and usual avocation, and such alone, when done on the Sabbath, are punishable as offenses against the statute. The motion to quash was correctly sustained.

Per Ou/riam.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 118702026peak 1870 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eitel v. State33 Ind. 201 (1870)

Most recent

  1. Eitel v. State33 Ind. 201 (1870)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list