Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

131 Ala. 41

Jebeles v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1901

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1901-11-15

Tried before the Hon. Ti-ios. YV. Coleman, Jr. The appellants in this case were tried and convicted under the following indictment: “The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment that John Jebeles and Peter Jebeles, being merchants or shopkeepers, and not druggists, kept open store on Sunday, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.” 'To this indictment the defendants demurred upon the following grounds: “1st. Because said…

Relies on Dixon v. State · Lawrence v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1961

5 state decisions

201901191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MoCLELLAN, C. 3.

¶1Section 5512 of the Code provides : “Any person who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, keeps open store” on Sunday must be fined, etc. This statute in our opinion sufficiently describes the offense intended to be denounced. The keeping of “open store” implies something more than opening the door of a shop or store or keeping the door open. It involves the keeping open of the store as such, the opening up of the business carried on in the house, the exposition to sale of the wares stored there for sale. The words in and of themselves mean the opening up and keeping open the storehouse of goods, wares and merchandise for the purposes of traffic. Where this is done it need not be shown that any sale was actually made; and on the other hand a sale may be made in such storehouse on Sunday which would not involve keeping open store within the statute.- — Snider v. State, 59 Ala. 61; Dixon v. State, 76 Ala. 89. And as the statute itself thus defines the offense, an indictment, like that in this case, which pursues the statute in its averments is sufficient although it does not contain all the averments of the form prescribed for offenses under section 5512 of the Code; and the city court did not err in overruling the demurrer to it.

¶2*44There is obviously no merit in defendant’s exception to the ruling of the court as to the testimony of R. A. Duncan, nor in the exception reserved to the finding and conclusion of the court on the evidence.

/131/ala/41 · .json · Public domain