WHAT IS LAWFUL ON SUNDAY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 144, 17 June 1880, Page 4

WHAT IS LAWFUL ON SUNDAY.

Tbe law prohibiting the transaction of business on Sunday has lately been interpreted in two ratber curious cases, one beinp deoided by tbe Surpreme Court of Michigan, and the other by the Supreme Court of Maine. In the former case, a Methodist preacher hsd made an appeal to his congregation during the usual Sunday cervices for money and subscriptions for the purchase of a cburch building--. The defendant in tbis action subscribed £25, but afterwards refused to pay it, and when suit was brought against him, he pleaded tbat the subscription or promise, being made on Sunday, was illegal, and therefore could not be enforced. Tbe statutes of Michigan prohibit, under penalty of a floe, every person from doing on Sunday "any manner or labor, .business, cr work, except only woiks of neoessity or. charily." The Supreme Court says, tbat taking subscriptions on Sunday is not a work of necessity, fcr the reason that it can be done at another time. Tbere is no doubt, Bays the court, that this is the most convenient time to attend to tbe matter, but it might for the same reaeoo have been tbe most convenient time for doing other business, such as the trading of horses, tbe hiring of laborers, and tbe general settlement of accounts, had the person present been disposed to engage in such transactions. But tbe taking of subscriptions, as the court holds, is a work of charity, which comes within tbe exception made by the statute. All the necessary or usual work, says tbe opinion, connected with religious worship is work of charity. .Otherwise, the preacher, the organißt, and the sexton would violate the law Jl ' ' " ■ "" ■ 11 ,■' ,JI. I Wlll.^a,

whenever they performed their church duties on Sunday. The subscription was, therefore, held to be lawful, and lhe defendant wbb bound to pay it. Id the Maine cnse, the pivotal question wss whether it is lawful to walk ;on Sunday in (he highways for exercise. Tbe plaintiff had sued the City of Portland to recover damages for injuries received by reason of a defective sidewalk. He had gone out cne Sunday afternoon to take a walk for recreation j be stopped in a saloon and got a glass of beer, and on his return heme he fell on the i idewalk and broke his leg. The statute of Maine is substantially the same as that of Michigan, already quoted. It makes work, labor, or business on Sunday unlawful, but excepts works of oharity or necessity. Under the facts which bave been cited, the city claimed that even if (be highway were defective, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Tho Supreme Court holds otherwise. Walking ou Sunday for (xerciso in the open bir, it e»ye, is not unlawful. Stopping for a glaßs of beer muy have been a violation of the statute; but unless it contributed to the accidett it wbb no excuse for a defective highway, and could not exempt the city from liability. —--'■ *- — ' .1 —i"