Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1859-07-30

Gbe polpuesiau.
Impertant In.urnnce Cnse.
Premiums falling due Sunday may Be paid on Mon
ddu-History ofke Christian Sabbolh

whether when the last day for paying q premium falls
on Sunday, the accused may claim the right TO pay on
Monday whether in order save his policy be must
| pay on the Saturday previous.
The leading facts follows Daniel Campbell
insured his life in defendants Company the policy be-
ing dated the 29th May, 1885, and providing for the
payment Of a certain premium annually. This premi-
was, by the terms of the policy payable on the 18th
of May. By notice sent to the assured, by the au-
thorized agents # the Company, and which was con-
sdered by the Court being conclusive upon the
Company, the 29th day of May, 1857. was named as
the day which the premiums for that year would be-
come due. The case was, therefore, treated in all re-
spects as if the 18th day of May had been the day
named in the policy for the payment of the annual pre-
MUM.
By of the conditions of the policy it was provid-
ed that The policy should not be considered in force if
the premium remained unpaid beyond thirty days after
| becoming due.
In the year 1857 thirty days from the t,oeniy
| of May, fell on Sunday, June 2Sth On MondGv the
29b, Mr. Campbell rendered the money. but the de-
PENDANTS refused TO receive il the ground that il
| too late About two months afterwards Mr. Campbell
died. His executrix then commenced this proceeding
to recover on the policy.
By the CoUrt-Hofman. j., (after disposing of some
preliminary questions, and stating the which
led the Court TO the result that the last day for the
payment of the premium be considered as having
fallen on Sunday, June 28). Then arises the import
question AS the last dav of the thirty days
Sunday, could the tender of the premium be made on
Monday?
The argument which is used to prove that it
be is substantially this Whatever may be lawfully
done any other day of the week may be done on
Sunday, except far positive statutory regulations
have prohibited a particular act. And next, what is
so permitted to be done on Sunday must be done on
that day whenever under contract the day for fulfill
ment falls upon it else it be done before that
day. state this to be the substance Of the argument
as general proposition, not that it is contended that
such n rule is absolutely exceptionless.
These important and interesting propositions may
well warrant a careful investigation.
In support Of this view, my brother Perpont (who
does not with the Cour) has referred to the
opinion of Lord Mansfield in Swan VS.. Broome, Bur-
rows, .596 That great Judge cited Sir Henry Spell
man (orgnal Of the terms) to show 'that the Chris
ans used all days for the hearing Of causes not spar
ing (as seemeth) the Sunday itsef' He assigns
reason, that by keeping their Courts always open,
suitOrs would be prevented from resOrting to the hea
then tribunals
He cites also canon of the year 57S forbdding any
Bishop or any one under him from judging causes
the Lords day, and tracing the regulation through
other canOns, until it became incorporated into the
boly of the canon law in the Code of Gratian; and
states further that it became part Of the common law Of
England by its confirmation by William the Conqueror
and Henry the Second If ever such practice exist
ed, it was, shall clearly show, checked at far
earlier period than the year 57S. and 1t seems TO
there exits a much more satisfactory and probable
for its prevalence for shorter period than the
one assigned There Apostolic injunction that
controversies between the Faithful should be left TO the
decision Of some among themselves, and should not be
brought before the tribunals Of the heahen The rule
of judgment was to be of persuasion, charity and
fnrbearance and it may well have been thought that
the holy day not desecrated when litiglnts
brought to reconciliation aOnement by influences
like these. 1t is obvious that Scriptura custom
benign in the early DAYS Of Christianity could not
main without danger and inconvenience, when the &C.
clesasca tribunals had nearly superseded the secular
urts and, may justly infer, the superior purity
of the principles of the decisions, and higher learning
and equity Of the administrators, made the people
tain and court them. (See Van Espin Jus. Eccl Univ
page 1907
The canon of A. D. 57S, referred to by Lord Mans
field the earliest law upon this subject Con-
stanne the Great passed edct, the date Of which
have not ascertaned but it between the years BOG,
his conversion, and 331 his death. 1t may be thus
translated 'Let all judges and the inhabitants of cit
les, and the laborers Of all trades and arts rest the
venerable day of the SUM-
So in an edict of Valentnian the Younger, between
A. d. 375 and 392, we find, "On the day Of the Sun,
which our forefathers rightly called the Lords Day,
1t attention to all tgatOns, 10 all empoymenis, ando
all agreem nts utterly let demand either
public private debt, let cognizance be had Of
any disputes before those who to determine, Wheth
er appointed by law voluntarily chosen
1t would be pertinent 10 pursue this inquiry fur
th except to remark that in the early edcts personal
labor and especially the abOrs of the field to have
been treated less the objects of prohibition than Of
later days, when they have been chiefly aimed at Van
Espen. ct supra.) Coming down to the law of our
English progenitors, | cannot but dwell for moment
upon the rule laid down in the Lber Penentialas of
Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury between the years
667 and $50. (Ancent laws and statutes of England
published by the Record Commission of 1910, p. 298
xxxviii, 7-l4) Ii made part of the general law Of
England, and full, minute and comprehensive in
its details of what was prohibited.
So LynwoOd, in his Provincial Constitutions (p. 81,
CanOncis lnsttutis) states the law Abstiendum est ab
opers mechanics alb agriculture mercatis ct pla-
citis ct hoe venum nsi qusnda contrarum exigt ne
cessitas vel pietas.''
One of the earliest statutes of England was that of
9th Henry VI cap. 5. At all the fairs and markets
they to refrain showing goods on Sundays The
act of Charles L. L. l., prohibited assembsges of peo
pie out Of their parishes that day. that of Car l.,
forbade carriers and wagOners from travelling on the
Lords Day, and butchers from killing
The learned Justice here quoted from statutes OF
27 Henry VI. "a. d. 1850; and Charles l.;
and 20 Charles H., (I67s) which last still forms
the basis of the English law SundEy. This last
statue forbds all public dealings offerings for sale,
AZ also ordains that one shall carry his Ordi
uary business that day. In one case e b. C.,
l32 it was decided that the statute did not forbid
orirote sales, but in a later case, before the same
Court Is B. and c.. 406,) This doctrine was with
Drawn, and private salr OF horse by dealer, on
SUNDAY held void. Still it is held that sale |
contract not within the ordinary calling trade of
The contractors is not prohibited by this statute.
King Us. Inhabitants of Whitmarsh, B. and c., |
596.)
He also cites our own statute, q R. s. 765. sec.
g. SOL which onits the words Of their ordinary
,alling," and all other qualifying words, making |
he prohibition absolute and extensive; with sever
II cases in which it has been held that agree |
nent to keep and deliver on demand watch, the |
holder need not regard demand made on Sunday |
hat an award made on Sunday void. &c. But, |
shows that in other cases is held that acts not
prohibited by statute may be done on Sunday, and |
pirate transt5r of personal property that day
has been decided valid. An attorneys clerk who
performed extra labor for his employer Sundays,
,ould not, however, recover.
The opinion continues as follows:
Yielding to the force Of what has actually been