Ruyn v. McDonald

Nebraska Supreme Court

Ruyn v. McDonald

82 Neb. 552

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 22, 1908

DocketNo. 15,561

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 Neb. 552 (Ruyn v. McDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruyn v. McDonald, 82 Neb. 552 (Neb. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Root, C.

This case presents much the same questions as were discussed in In re Caldwell, ante, p. 544. Relator was convicted of an alleged violation of section 241 of the criminal code, and the statement in the complaint is that relator did, in Douglas county, Nebraska, on the 15th day of December, 1907, being the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, unlawfully engage in common labor, to wit, did sell and offer for sale cigars and newspapers, and negativing the exceptions in said statute. After a trial and conviction, application was made for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon return of the sheriff the writ was denied. In the application for the writ it was alleged that relator was deprived of his liberty contrary to law, and contrary to the constitution of the state of Nebraska, but in none of the assignments of error or in the brief in this court is the claim made that section 241, supra, is unconstitutional.

[553]*553Relator’s counsel has filed, an elaborate argument to demonstrate that the acts charged in the complaint do not constitute common labor, and hence defendant was not tried for any offense against the laws of the state. Respondent’s counsel has likewise presented a well-considered brief demonstrating that the aforesaid acts do amount to common labor within the meaning of said section 241. Friends of the court have also volunteered their assistance, and, upon the identical point presented to the police magistrate, and necessarily decided by him, we have been fully advised. We do not think it necessary for us to decide, and we do not determine, whether the decision of the magistrate was erroneous or not, but we do hold, for the reasons set forth in In re Caldwell, supra, that said judgment was not absolutely void, but that it is sufficient to repel this collateral attack thereon.

We therefore recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Epperson, Good and Calkins, GO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Root, C.

This case presents much the same questions as were discussed in In re Caldwell, ante, p. 544. Relator was convicted of an alleged violation of section 241 of the criminal code, and the statement in the complaint is that relator did, in Douglas county, Nebraska, on the 15th day of December, 1907, being the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, unlawfully engage in common labor, to wit, did sell and offer for sale cigars and newspapers, and negativing the exceptions in said statute. After a trial and conviction, application was made for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon return of the sheriff the writ was denied. In the application for the writ it was alleged that relator was deprived of his liberty contrary to law, and contrary to the constitution of the state of Nebraska, but in none of the assignments of error or in the brief in this court is the claim made that section 241, supra, is unconstitutional.

[553]*553Relator’s counsel has filed, an elaborate argument to demonstrate that the acts charged in the complaint do not constitute common labor, and hence defendant was not tried for any offense against the laws of the state. Respondent’s counsel has likewise presented a well-considered brief demonstrating that the aforesaid acts do amount to common labor within the meaning of said section 241. Friends of the court have also volunteered their assistance, and, upon the identical point presented to the police magistrate, and necessarily decided by him, we have been fully advised. We do not think it necessary for us to decide, and we do not determine, whether the decision of the magistrate was erroneous or not, but we do hold, for the reasons set forth in In re Caldwell, supra, that said judgment was not absolutely void, but that it is sufficient to repel this collateral attack thereon.

We therefore recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Epperson, Good and Calkins, GO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Neb. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruyn-v-mcdonald-neb-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack