The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1872-05-14
The law as applied to Disturbsnees II
Church.

referring 10 the Act of Assembly on the sub
iect of creating disturbance i1 church
&C., the Judge said;
First, then, It must be soilfs1, that is, not
accidental, or unintended, for we can read
ily conceive, that there may be many dis
turbances Of such meetings by an individ-
ual, not only unavoidable on his part-but
arising from mere indiscretion. His phys
ical appearance may be such as to attract
general attention, and withdraw the
thoughts of worshipers from the purposes
they may have met to consider n y. 1t is
fact recorded Of many comedians, that
their merelook, and expression of features
alone, were sufficient to provoke an audi
ence to mirthfulness. The celebrated
Thomas Corwin, so renowned as States
man and politician, and with whom | was
intimate for several years, possessed such
peculiar facial powers, that his mere look
arrested general attention, and when dis
posed, he had but to stand silently before
his audience, and all were compelled TO
laugh. So that were men possessing such
powers, to forget themselves for moment,
and give play to their peculiarities of ex-
preston, any congregation would 'involun-
tarialy burst out into laughter. So that the
Act of Assembly has been guarded by re-
quiring, that before a conviction takes
place, it must appear that the act done,
wds done for no other purpose than of dis
turbing the meeting.
Then the Act says it must not only be
wilful-but maliciously done-that is what
ever is done must be done with bad in
tention. A man might in a sudden passion
strike another in such meeting and thereby
disturb the congregation, yet while such
persons would have in fact disturbed the
meeting, still this disturbance would not
be by design, but would flow from motive
different, as revenge upon the individual
thus struck and in such case, the disturb
ance would be neither wiful nor malicious,
for the purpose of the individual in this
case could be readily ascertained.
But where no motive is discernable, and
a man does an act and certain consequences
flow from such act, it is rule of law that
the natural and probable consequences of
every act, deliberately done, are presumed
to have been intended by the author.
SO that when man does an act from
which certain consequences flow, the law
concludes that just such consequences were
intended.
Now apply these principles to the case in
hand. These defendants voluntarily went
TO religious meeting, place they had
right to be, just so long as they behaved
themselves. Good behavior in church
meeting, is strict compliance with the
rules and regulations laid down by the
authorities of the congregation worshiping
there and the instant those rules and reg
ulations are knowingly and wilfully and
maliciously transgressed, that could be
disturbing such meeting to a degree at
least. Now what docs disturb meetings
What does the congregation meet forP
Evidently to worship the Supreme Being.
Then wshatever interrupts, hinders, and with
draws the minds of the people from ,tke
object Of their meeting, is a disturbance.
Suppose a man or boy wilfully makes
grimaees or faces, can there be any doubt
that such acts would amount to disturb
ances. Or suppose he purposely dothes
himself 80 as to arrest attention, and pre-
sents himself in church, can you doubt as
to this being q disturbance Of a meeting
and could any reasonable man doubt of the
wilful intent and malice of the persons SO
doing?
Or suppose a man shuffles his feet, as
sumes postures smiles, laughs, provokes
others to mirthfuness, and the attention
of the congregation is thereby arrested and
diverted from the business on hand would
unless congregations can be protected
against this quiet kind of fun, which young
men think smart, and so secretly carried on,
that watches have to be appointed to de-
tRct it, the legislature had better repeal
these laws. 1t is not necessary, in order to
commit the offence of disturbing meeting,
that the act or acts done, should assume
the force and violence of riot. assault,
battery, woundlng or any other crime at
ten6ed with a breach of the peace If
such were the law then good people desirous
of diScharging their religious duties would
have 30 meet under lock and key, or be-
tween file of soldiers to avoid Interrupt
tiOn. The rule then is plain and simple,
that laughing purposaly, willfully and
spOrtiDGly, at the persons having charge of
such meeting or wOrshiping there, would
be disturbance of the meeting-is in fact
or tnterrupting meeting. Such
conduct IA young or old, whilst it may seem
jolly fun, 60 the actors, is Calling, vexatiOus
and disturbing to all such as 20 there for
good. Than do you find in the evidence of
this prosecution that which satisfies you
beyond a reasonable doubt that these de-
feRdaDts or any of them, willfuly laughed,
and made spOrt of the person, or persons
who at the time were conducting this
prayer meetingf If you do, then convict
such, one, or more of them, according to
the proof. IT. however, you find it doubt
fal asa matter of fact, whether the defen-
daDts are guilty, as charged in the bill of
indictmeAt, then we instruct you, that such
doubt is the property of the defendants and
entities them to an acquittal at your hands.
In determining the guilt or innocence of
these defendants you should give great
weight to the uncontradicted evidence of
the good character of these young men,
and unless the proof is clear TO your minds,
and beyond reasonable doubt that in the
particular case in hand they did commit