Benson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Benson v. State

85 S.W. 796, 47 Tex. Crim. 609, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 53

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 22, 1905

DocketNo. 3189.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 S.W. 796 (Benson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. State, 85 S.W. 796, 47 Tex. Crim. 609, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Tex. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was indicted under article 196, Penal Code, for laboring on .Sunday. The character of labor charged to have been performed was, that appellant, as steward for the Board of Trade Club conducted the same, opened and conducted it for business on Sunday. The only labor performed by appellant, as shown by the facts, was the sale of one bottle of beer. Prosecutor saw appellant let Charley Mathis have a bottle of beer, and he also bought one bottle of beer from appellant on Sunday. We do not think these isolated acts would constitute “labor” within the contemplation of the statute. While appellant may be prosecuted for violating the local option law, or some other law, for making these sales on Sunday, yet we hold that the isolated two sales would not constitute labor within the contemplation of said statute. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was indicted under article 196, Penal Code, for laboring on .Sunday. The character of labor charged to have been performed was, that appellant, as steward for the Board of Trade Club conducted the same, opened and conducted it for business on Sunday. The only labor performed by appellant, as shown by the facts, was the sale of one bottle of beer. Prosecutor saw appellant let Charley Mathis have a bottle of beer, and he also bought one bottle of beer from appellant on Sunday. We do not think these isolated acts would constitute “labor” within the contemplation of the statute. While appellant may be prosecuted for violating the local option law, or some other law, for making these sales on Sunday, yet we hold that the isolated two sales would not constitute labor within the contemplation of said statute. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W. 796, 47 Tex. Crim. 609, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack