Knowles v. State

3 Day 103
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
DecidedJune 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 3 Day 103 (Knowles v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knowles v. State, 3 Day 103 (circtdct 1808).

Opinion

By the Court,

unanimously. The statute on winch this information is grounded, prohibits all persons from exhibiting “ on any public stage or place whatsoever, any games, tricks, plays, shows, tumbling, rope-dancing, puppet-shows, or feats of uncommon dexterity or agility of body,” under a penalty. The word shows, which alone can apply to this case, has no technical meaning, known in law; and it cannot be extended by construction, to render criminal the mere exhibition of a work of art, a natural curiosity, or the collections of a museum.

[108]*108Every public show and exhibition, which outrages de-(:cllcD shocks humanity, or is contrary to good morals, is punishable at common law. The averment in this in- , . . formation, that it is contrary to the statute, may be rejected as surplusage, and will not vitiate. But such an information must particularly state the circumstances in which the indecency, barbarity or immorality, consists; that the court may judge whether the public exhibition of the show amounts to a crime.

This information alleges, that said Knowles exhibited a horrid and unnatural monster, highly indecent, unseemly, and improper to be seen, or exposed as a show; but spates no circumstances in the description of its appearance, which show this allegation to be true: it cannot be supported, either at common law, or on the statute.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
606 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court, 2025)
Home Box Office, Inc. v. Wilkinson
531 F. Supp. 987 (D. Utah, 1982)
State v. Sul
147 A.2d 686 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1958)
Maloney v. People
132 Ill. App. 184 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
State v. Nease
80 P. 897 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1905)
United States v. Hanover
17 F. 444 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1883)
United States v. Bennett
24 F. Cas. 1093 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1879)
People v. Hallenbeck
52 How. Pr. 502 (Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York, 1877)
People v. Hallenbeck
2 Abb. N. Cas. 66 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
State v. Doud
7 Conn. 384 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1829)
Southworth v. State
5 Conn. 325 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1824)
State v. Danforth
3 Conn. 112 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1819)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Day 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knowles-v-state-circtdct-1808.