Clark v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Clark v. State

319 S.W.2d 726, 167 Tex. Crim. 204, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1811

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 14, 1959

Docket30201

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 319 S.W.2d 726 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 319 S.W.2d 726, 167 Tex. Crim. 204, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1811 (Tex. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is permitting a place of business to be open for the purpose of traffic and sale on Sunday, as denounced by Article 286, V.A.P.C.; the punishment, a fine of $20.00.

It was stipulated that the appellant was a merchant and trader in a lawful business, and opened and permitted his store and place of business to be opened for the purpose of traffic and sale on Sunday.

Appellant submits si carefully prepared brief in which he *205 discusses the nature of the appellant’s business. The statement of facts approved by counsel makes no mention of the type of business in which the appellant is engaged, and we cannot consider allegations in the brief not supported by the statement of facts.

We have been presented no argument which would cause us to overrule the prior holdings of this court on Sayeg v. State, 114 Texas Cr. Rep. 163, 25 S.W. 2d 865, and the cases there cited, to the effect that the articles which comprise Chapter Two of Title 7, V.A.P.C. (Sunday Laws), are constitutional. The contention that conditions have changed would be more compelling were it not for the fact that the legislature of this state has amended the provisions of such chapter six times since the original adoption.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is permitting a place of business to be open for the purpose of traffic and sale on Sunday, as denounced by Article 286, V.A.P.C.; the punishment, a fine of $20.00.

It was stipulated that the appellant was a merchant and trader in a lawful business, and opened and permitted his store and place of business to be opened for the purpose of traffic and sale on Sunday.

Appellant submits si carefully prepared brief in which he *205 discusses the nature of the appellant’s business. The statement of facts approved by counsel makes no mention of the type of business in which the appellant is engaged, and we cannot consider allegations in the brief not supported by the statement of facts.

We have been presented no argument which would cause us to overrule the prior holdings of this court on Sayeg v. State, 114 Texas Cr. Rep. 163, 25 S.W. 2d 865, and the cases there cited, to the effect that the articles which comprise Chapter Two of Title 7, V.A.P.C. (Sunday Laws), are constitutional. The contention that conditions have changed would be more compelling were it not for the fact that the legislature of this state has amended the provisions of such chapter six times since the original adoption.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 S.W.2d 726, 167 Tex. Crim. 204, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-texcrimapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack