State v. . ShoafState v. . Shoaf
after stating the case as above: The facts in. tbis ease bring it directly witbin the purviеw of the exemption and not witbin the prohibition of the statute, being excepted from it by the proviso.
Tbe term “restaurant and cafe,” in common parlance, and, we tbinb, as used in the statute, are substantially synonymous. A restaurant is generаlly understood to be a place where refreshments, food and drink are served. "Whether they are served to guests seated at a table or on stoоls at a counter does not affect the definition, that being merely a detail in the operation of the restaurant. Tbe evidence shows that the defеndant bad no tables in bis place, but bad a counter with stools ranged along in front of it, and to the guests seated on these stools be sold lunches, weiners, and egg sandwiches. Tbis, it seems to us, was strictly a restaurant business witbin the approved definition as shown in the dictionaries and in 7 Words 'and Phrases, p. 6180. While the word “restaurant” has nо strictly defined meaning, it seems to be used indiscriminately as a name for all places where refreshments can be bad, from a mere eating-house and cook-shop, to any other place where eatables are furnished to be consumed on the premises.
Richards v. W. Fire and M. Ins. Co.,
Tbe witness called tbe рlace a “weiner joint,” but there is nothing in tbis case to show that to be a just or сorrect designation of it, if it was meant by tbe term to imply that tbe restaurant was nоt kept in a decent or orderly manner. A “joint” is usually regarded as a plaсe of meeting, or resort, for persons engaged in evil and secret prаctices of any kind, as a tramps’ joint, such a place as is usually kept by Chinеse for tbe accommodation of persons addicted to tbe habit of opium smoking, and where they are furnished with pipes, opium, etc., for that purpose, and called an opium joint, or generally speaking, a rendezvоus for persons *747 of evil babits and practices. If, in this sense, the words were intendеd as an opprobrious epithet, the evidence utterly fails to disclosе that this place was not properly conducted, in every way, or that there has been the slightest disturbance of the peace and quiet of the сommunity by reason of any disorderly or improper conduct therein. So far as appears there was absolutely nothing done that would mar in the least thе proper and peaceful observance of the Sabbath, no mоre than there would be in a well conducted hotel or in one’s home. Food and drink are necessary to the sustenance of man and the statute was nоt intended to prohibit the furnishing of them to patrons when there is, in no other respect, a violation of the law alleged or shown.
It was error to submit the case to the jury and to refuse the nonsuit. The verdict will be set aside, and judgment of nonsuit will be entered in the Superior Court, which shall have the force and effect, as provided by statute (Acts of 1913, ch. 73; Gregory’s Suppl., sec. 3265a), of a verdict of not guilty.
Error.