Barber

Barbers were incorporated with the surgeons of London, but not to practice surgery, except the drawing of teeth; 32 Hen. VIII. c. 42. The business of a barber involves the public health and interest to such an extent that the requirement of a license is a valid exercise of legislative power; State v. Zeno, 79 Minn. SO, 81 N. W. 748, 48 L. R. A. 88, 78 Am. St. Rep. 422. Within the meaning of a civil rights act a barber shop is not a place of public accommodation; Faulkner v. Solazzi, 79 Conn. 541, 65 Atl. 947, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 9 Ann. Cas. 67. Shaving on Sunday is not a work of necessity, charity or mercy; 4 CI. & F. 234. A barber's work is a worldly labor in the course of the ordinary calling; State v. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347, 55 Am. Rep. 555. In Com. v. Waldman, 140 Pa. 89. 21 Atl. 248, 11 L. 'R. A. 563, the court refused to say as a matter of law that the keeping open his place of business on Sunday by a barber was a matter of necessity. Shaving an aged or infirm person in his own home on Sunday is not, as a matter of law. a work of necessity: Stone v. Graves. 145 Mass 353, 13 N. E. 90G. A statute declaring that keeping open a barber shop is not deemed a work of necessity or charity does not exceed constitutional bounds, though as to other kinds of labor, that question is left to be determined as one of fact; State v. Petit, 71 Minn. 376, 77 N. W. 225; affirmed in Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716. Where a state constitution forbids the passage of special or local laws for the punishment of crimes, a Jaw making it a misdemeanor for a barber to work on Sunday after 12 noon was held unconstitutional: Ex parte 296, 43 N. E. 1108, 32 L. It. A. 659, 52 Am. St. Rep. 3G5; State v. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326, 33 S. W. 784; Armstrong v. State, 170 Ind. 18S, 84 N. E. 3, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646; so where a law prohibited barbers from opening their bath rooms on Sunday, but did not prohibit other persons from doing so; Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, 6 S. W. 401; but see contra, State v. Bergfeldt, 41 Wash. 231. S3 Pac. 177, 6 Ann. Cas. 979; People v. Havnor. 1-19 N. Y. 105, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 6S9, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707, the latter case by a divided court, three of seven judges dissenting on the ground that the act (making it a misdemeanor for a barber to work on Sunday, except in the cities of New York and Saratoga Springs, and there only until one o'clock) was vicious class legislation; and that the result necessarily leads to the conclusion that the legislature, by permitting barber shops to remain open for a portion of Sunday in two cities necessarily proceeded upon the theory that the business is a work of necessity. Where a general law prohibits all labor on Sunday, an act prohibiting barbers from working on that dav is not class legislation; Breyer v. State, 102 Tenn. 103, 50 S. W. 769.