
    The People v. August Waldvogel.
    
      Closing saloons on Sunday — Intent of dealer.
    
    Act 259 of 1881 requiring saloons to be kept closed on Sunday is violated if a saloon is allowed to be open whether for the sale of ’ liquor, for cleaning up, or for any other business purpose; and the question of the proprietor’s intent is immaterial.
    The jury must accept the law from the court and be governed thereby.
    Exceptions before judgment from Calhoun.
    Submitted October 19.
    Decided October 20.
    Information under Act 259 of 1881 for keeping saloon open on Sunday. Despondent was convicted below.
    Exceptions overruled.
    Attorney General Jacob J. Van Riper for the People.
    The jury are not judges of the law. but are to receive the law from the court: Co. Litt. 155-6: Greenl. Ev. § 49; Hamilton v. People 29 Mich. 173 ; Com. v. Porter 10 Met. 263; Pierce v. State 13 N. H. 536.
    
      Rienzi Loud for respondent.
    There can be no crime where there is no criminal intent: Pond v. People 8 Mich. 150; 1 Bish. Cr. L. 364; under statutes against keeping stores open on the Lord’s Day, it is immaterial that the door has been left open unless the occupant is within and ready 4o do business: 2 Bish. Cr. L. § 942; Com. v. Harrison 11 Gray 308; Com. v. Lynch 8 Gray 384.
   Marston, J.

The respondent was charged with, and convicted of, keeping open his saloon on Sunday, November 6th, contrary to the statute. The case comes here on writ of error and two questions are raised.

The fact that the doors of the saloon were open on the •day mentioned and that several peopl e were in the saloon was not disputed. The -claim made was that these people were in there assisting the respondent in washing and cleaning the saloon, and that no liquor was sold nor was there any intention of selling any. The court was requested to» instruct the jury, that unless they found “the defendant was in his place of business for the purpose of carrying on his business of liquor-selling they must acquit.” Also t “ that if they found he was there for the purpose of cleaning out his saloon, and not for dealing in liquor-selling, the-criminal intent is wanting and the defendant must be acquitted;” and also that a criminal intent must be found or the defendant acquitted. These requests were refused,, and the court instructed the jury that if “the defendant kept his saloon open, or had it open so that the public could enter if they chose, he would be guilty.”

The statute is clear and explicit that all such .places shall be closed on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and provides that in prosecutions it shall not be necessary to prove that any liquor was sold. Act 259, Laws 1881, § 5.

The question of intent is wholly immaterial under this statute. The Legislature, in order to guard against the danger of sales being made, has directed that the place where liquors are kept shall be closed, so that no opportunity t© violate, by making sales, shall be afforded. The person who engages in the business of carrying on a saloon must at his peril see that no necessity exists for keeping the same open, by carrying on any other business therein, which would require the doors to be open or for persons to enter therein'. There is no ambiguity in this statute. The places named must be closed and cannot by the proprietor thereof be kept open for any business purpose of any kind. Kurtz v. People 33 Mich. 282.

The other question requires no consideration. The jury must accept the law from the court, and it is their duty t© be governed thereby.

The court must be directed to proceed to judgment.

The other Justices concurred.  