
    (48 Misc. Rep. 642)
    HALLEN v. THOMPSON et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 29, 1905.)
    Sunday—Contracts or Employment—Validity.
    A contract for the employment of one to give two theatrical performances per day at a music hall for a fixed period, including a Sunday, is void, because in violation of Pen. Code, §§ 263, 265, 267, and Laws 1897, p. 522, c. 378, § 1481, prohibiting labor on Sunday, etc.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent. Dig. Sunday, § 48.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    Action by Frederick Hallen against Frederick Thompson and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    
      Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and Mac-LEAN, JJ.
    I-Iouse, Grossman & Vorhaus (Charles Goldzier, of counsel), for appellants.
    K. Henry Rosenberg, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants by the terms of which the plaintiff was to give two theatrical performances per day at the Colonial Music Hall from April 10, 1905, to April 16, 1905, both days inclusive, which included Sunday. On reporting at the Music Hall on April 10th, plaintiff was informed that his services were not wanted. He sued for breach of contract, and obtained judgment in his favor for $300, the full amount of his claim, and costs. The defense is mainly based upon the statutes commonly called the “Sunday Laws.” It seems to us that the defense was well taken, and the contract was void as being in violation of such statutes. See Pen. Code, §§ 263, 265, 277; Charter, Laws 1897, p. 522, c. 378, § 1481; Mayer v. Eden Musee, 102 N. Y. 593, 8 N. E. 40.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  