
    KEEPING BUTCHER SHOPS OPEN ON SUNDAY.
    Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
    Charles Derrick v. State of Ohio.
    
    Decided, March 27, 1918.
    
      Criminal ■Laic — Prosecution for' Keeping Open on Sunday — Supplying '■ ' Meat to the Tenement Class on the First Day of the Week Not a "Work of Necessity, When.
    
    The keeping cpen Of a place for the sale of meat on Sunday, iii a •thickly populated district where thé people are of the tenement class, and not financially able to provide themselves with-ice boxes or other means .for preserving meats, where such opening , occurs during that part of the year when, the weather is sufficiently cold to preserve meat and other vegetables, is not a wcrk of necessity and, therefore, does not fall within the exception provided in Section 12045.
    
      
      Miller & Foster, for plaintiff in error.
    
      E. J. Siebenth.aUr and E. S. Morrissey, Assistant Prosecutors, contra.
    
      
      In the subsequent case of State v. Besl the court held that keeping open fcr the sale of meat cn Sunday in March was not a work of necessity for the same reason given in the above opinion. Motions to require the Court of Appeals to certify its records in both of these cases were overruled by the Supreme Court July 16, 1918.
    
   By the Court.

. The ease here presented involves a charge of the violation of Section 13044, General Code, providing against the keeping dpen.of.a :pla.Ce 'for-.the transaction of business, upon the first day of the week commonly called Sunday. .

The specific charge is that the defendant unlawfully and knowingly caused to be open, for the transaction, of- business, to-wit,.th.e sale of meats, a. certain place in the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton county,. Ohio. •

Defendant was tried and convicted in the municipal court of Cincinnati, without the intervention of a jury.

The defendant contends that the keeping open of the place for the sale of meats was. a workjof necessity, and came within the exception provided in Section 13045, General Code; and that it was made such a work of necessity by the fact that the place was located in a thickly populated tenement district of the city where the'-inhabitants were-not able-financially to maintain ice-boxes or other methods of preserving meats.

The evidence discloses that the transaction took place in January, and the court is of the opinion that at that season of the. year-it can not be considered such a work of necessity, as the nature of the.weather is such .that it is not a difficult matter to preserve meats — the court taking judicial notice of the fact that' at that'time, of the year the weather is sufficiently cold to preserve meat and other food' stuffs. We therefore hold that under the • evidence this wag not such a work of necessity as would avoid liability under the statute.

■ Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Jones, P. J., Gorman, J., and Hamilton, J., .all concur.  