The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-11

OuBnt 20 pc 70 decide that what Is at Oest riding
lac uty amounts % necessity The cRsatIr has not
exeInp ed from the prohibition which may conduce
ties of individuas even large portions of the oeop e.
IT. mus De presumed they considered what inconven
Lords Gay, Gay. In ew OF them, well the evils
they enacted the statute or 75i Their control ing Oh,
ect was to protect the community asa!nst vice i'm
gal az Wor d III, labor and business, except works Of
necessity ana charity but they old not overlook public
In the proviso Of the act they declared how free
but o1n,T6u ing to the necessities of others rho
what was Intended b. except works of neces-
sity from the prohibiting clause If was meant by
even necessity in such others tn theI
Tie pr9ylso Is entire snperluous 1t is plaln however
works ofnecessity to him who does them and not to
Ihe5e Is very little any, world business that does
not suDserve the convenience and toe necessities
Ter and furniture undoubted neoessitls But NAV
the Justly his ordinary
the e6y furnishing @ lood or he hungry May the cot
be ariven as usue without cessation, on the Lords
Dav,, because they are thus contributing to
he business the csTpener "S or CSS CsSlne-makef
to Rgys on through the SUNDAYS Of the week
others may need houses or furniture May the chemist
medienss necessariesS All these questions, aud
multitude e Of others Of similar character must be
sunday; on city passenger railways Is work OF
7j4 it may be doubted whether Keeping theatres and
PAGES OF pub ic amusement open Sunda might not
be found; doubtless who would Sf Fm on oaSh that
and bodily heath and that such recfeaIton as they
anord Is necessity, such construction OF the
Pe losing sight entirely o the SojScts Sas' songSt E1u0 TO
% the tSerSSR snsng 81 Ss OF rest
worship God according the dictates Of his conscience
giving check TO vice and immortality A construction
that eads to such an absardity must be erroneous
to the act any operation but that which holds the
% b aeo sS0kfR enc OF 70 be such as are
Whe' her world y business done BY anv mau and not
on %orE ReSe e TS% uesUn se RF0H must
aways be is necessary to him who does itP The
day charity nor even that is necessary to them.
Tor others. / think the act does not allow them to
shell ter themselves under others
been V decision an Of ORSs 9 Court
son vs. Sine the commonwealth OF Harris lO2 determined,
is worldly employment. aud not work of necessity,
un on suRda9 Ibis 's sis d dec SpH IN
point and. though decided ty divided court it is the
liberty depart even ii doubted the OF
bv the present Thief Justice of this court and in it he
fully met and answered the argument now reproduced,
OF necessity Judges Lowrle and Knox concurred with
No one O. these Judges has ever departed from the
ground taken In that case And in Commonwealth va.
Judge of this Court announced in substance the same
doctrine He declared that driving pub ic conveyance
Visions Of the act Of ira Beyond doubt nn Hts Whole
opinion is assertion that running city paSsel-
ger railways Sundays Is contrary awlt is tn en-
bey ono controversy that the conduct OF these defend
pable vlola'ion OF he laws the Commonwes tn And
cannot doubt that it has been considered by the
Their conduct in seeking protection under a contract
Sunday shows that such was their opinion nave,
then, before me corporation creature of law, to
leges at the expense OF the public papably and Der
its acts are con rary to law and preudical to The nte
come next to the question whether these complain
ants sh9Tn @ WI. T sn ed & to ask % S the
the defendants 1t must be admitted that it
@ sustanns particular inoEy And Think It is inc nea' @
DE endDSs ns ere With e %
pertv. agree that equity will not enor'e penalty
enjoD against the commission of crme when It is
merely crime and not also an injury to private rights
But an act may be a public oGense and also private
wrong OF this there are many examples public nui-
injury quite distinct from that OF the pnOc general
Of na ic IN they are entitled
compel the wrong doer to take active agans
1 am not called upon now to define minutey every
ass Of cases in heh equity wiz interfere Tie act
G1 S e Sf acts Oft e to law
rie5ts Of individuals ' 'H0 community or 'h'
For the present assume that the rights OF Individual
meaning OF the act What rights OF prope rty then i
any. have the complainanis with which the legal con
duct OF the defendants mterleres injurlousv? They
own and occupy dwelling houses along the line of tn,
also on the line Of the railway AS owners of dweml
f3 noise and disturbance Of domestic aaei q"
Noise is an nnnoy ance which may be complained OF
case OF an Injunction granted against ringngi bells,
sim. n r. iS9, is an an example Nv brother Thompson
householder disturbed by the noise his business.
nousy damaged by alone Cons ant firing of an
non or beating OF drums before dwelling house wou
Now what is The nature OF the enjoyment which tn
Commonwealth on Sunday / am not nquring whenc
his rights come whether from the common law. or tn
that man has a right to different enjoy nent of bi
house on sunday from that which he can claim on an
Esgscal afe PeThOders entitled to protection j
be enjoyed fews in churches are real property recog
nzed such by the law ThsS are the subject sale
small farms, An action may De maintained Tor disturb
consists in The tSSites it affords Tor Joining in publ
worship, and tor receiving the instruction given in tn
loses for W bic6 such property is designed or used
its distraction; and it may amount as fully TO an rrt
parable private wrong as is any un aWtut act again
uch being the rights of property Of the comDainanu
Sparnawk Others, the mex question is whether
unlawful acts OF the defendants interfere with the
the complainants has sworn that the running of Il
ears SS m hSSe % ON h 70 IS & Gn e a6 S1
osed, and when reading aloud 10 his family TO abi
sion his enjoyment that it depreciates the
ms property. A the other conpainants, who char.
unewml interference with the awful enjoyment
their dwell ing houses, assert, oath substantial
the same grievances They ure driven from the fro
heir houses; their meditatlons and their Sa
oath res are broken up, and the lawful TO VIII c
thev desire 10 devote their property are made iT
| possible.
The question before me is whe er the complain IN
aye disturbed; viii 1t Is true that no be
| pc led TO form degree OF worship, Ii is equa
| tue that o man be disturbed in that wOr Il
which he desire TO render mis- Sovereign God
| Nor are anv OF the Numerous Rffdavits submitted
the DEFENDANTS in conflict with the proofs that those
| the compHinantS who owners Of houses along I
| line ol the defendants Tgi disturbed u'the
i nj 1Oyment their property. " he ALLAN
/ disturbed IN heir dwelling hOuses The 10 whi
they may wish to deyote thelr pTnperty may no, be