Case ID: mass_144/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Joseph Osgood.
    Suffolk.
    March 21.
    May 5. 1887.
    Field, C. Allen, & Gardner, JJ., absent.
    The Pub. Sts. c. 98, § 2, prohibit the keeping open of a shop on the Lord’s day for the purpose of doing business therein, although the business is that of selling Sunday newspapers.
    Complaint on the Pub. Sts. c. 98, § 2,. alleging that the defendant kept open his shop, in that part of Boston called South Boston, on November 21, 1886, the same being the Lord’s day, “ for the purpose of doing business therein.”
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., it appeared in evidence that the defendant was the owner of said shop; and that the shop was kept open by him on said day for the purpose of selling Sunday newspapers only.
    The defendant asked the judge to rule as follows: “ 1. To warrant a finding that the defendant was guilty of the charge set forth in the complaint, the jury must find that the defendant kept open his shop unnecessarily for the purpose of doing business therein. 2. If the jury find that the defendant kept his shop open simply for the purpose of selling Sunday newspapers, and that selling Sunday newspapers on the Lord’s day was a work of necessity, then they should return a verdict of not guilty.”
    The judge refused to give the rulings requested, and instructed the jury that, if they found that the defendant kept open his shop on the Lord’s day for the purpose of doing business therein, they should find the defendant guilty; and that it was immaterial whether the business to be done was a necessity or not.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      W. T. Badger., for the defendant, cited Commonwealth v. Collins, 2 Cush. 556.
    
      E. J. Sherman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

This case is governed by Commonwealth v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28. Exceptions overruled.