The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1821-10-10
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
J1orcsster-Octobsr Term 1901


Lees, petitioner, v. Childs.-This was Pc
htion TO the Court for writ Of certiOrarf To-
ISSUE to a Justice of the Peace in this County.
commanding him tocertify to the Court certain
proceedings had before him upon complaint
against the petitioner, enrolled as private
soldier IN company Of infantry, for neglect,
ing to appear at a company training in Octo-
Der last; upon which the petitioner had been
adjudged to pay the penalty provided by the,
statute for that neglect.
The whole proceedings being in fact set
forth in the petition, the case was argued upon
its merits, as well by counsel in behalf of
Chalds, tie Clerk of the company, as on the
part Of the petitioner.
The facts material in the case, and which
were in evidence before the Justice. were.
that the petitioner was member of the Soci..
ETY. of Friends in the town of Bolton, and had
certificate of his membership and of his
usually attending religious worship with that
Society. This certificate was not produced
to the commanding officer of Che company
until the petitioner had been notified to appear
at the aforementioned training; nor had the
latter ever received any previous notice Of his
enrolment. Upon these facts, the petitioner
had claimed before the Justice to be acquitted,
by force of the following provision Of tha
Militia Law -
Livery person of the religious denornina-
tions-of Quakers and Shakers, who shall, on or
before the first Tuesday Of May, annually,
produce certificate to the COMMUNICATIVE
OF the company within whose bounds such
Quaker or Shaker resides which certificate,
signed by two or more Of the Elde<s or Over
seers, and countersigned by the Clerk of tha
Society, with which such Quaker or Shaker
meets for religious worship, shall be-, in sub.
stance, as follows - We the Subscribers
lac. do hereby certify, that -- isa
member of our Society, and that he frequent-
Iy and usually attends with said Society for
religious worship and ace bcliere is conscsen-.
ho'ssly sc'r4pulons Of bearing arms"
Upon the strength of this clause of the
Statute, the petitioners counsel contended
that the judgment of the justice was errone-.
Gus, and that the proceedings before him ought
to be quashed, notwithstanding the facts, that
his certificate was not produced to the COM
manding officer of the company on or before
the first Tuesday of May" and that it did not
contain any averment of belief in his being
conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms"
II we rightly recollect the course of the argu,
ment, it was urged, 1st, that the petitioner
was not bound to exhibit his certificate until
he had notice Of his enrolment, (Which in
this case was not until several months after
the first Tuesday of May)-that he did not
know and was not bound TO inquire within
the limits of what company he resided, nor
who was his " commanding, oflicer'-that.
therefore, it was sufficient compliance with
the statute to exhibit his certificate as soon am
he was warned to do military duty, where
by he was notified OF his enrolment. and
who was, the commanding officer to whom the
certificate was to be produced.
1t was commended, I'd, that the certificate
produced varied from that prescribed by the