The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-07-22
Shaving on Sunday

In recent case it was held that keep
ing open BARRIERS shop ON Sunday is
not indictable either rs o nuisance or n
misdemeanor. 1t was held not to be
misdemeanor because n penalty for the
violation of the Sunday laws is imposed.
The question then was whether it was a
nuisance, and the Court said " 1t cannot
be said that barber-shop is something
which incommodes or mnoys, or which
produces Inconvenience or damage to
others. On the contrary, the business OF
barbering is so essential to the comfort
and convenience of the inhabitants of a
town or city that it may be required as a
necessary occupation. To hold that it
becomes q nuisance when carried on on
Sunday is a perversion of the term
nuisance All that can be said of it Is
that when prosecuted on Sunday it is a
violation of the statute, and subject to be
proceeded against MS prescribed by law,
but not subject to be indicted as a NUS
ance. 1t may shock the moral sense of n
portion of the community to see the
harder carrying on his business with open
doors on Sunday, but produces no neon
venience or damage to others, and there
fore cannot be regarded in legal contem-
plation nuisance"
The legality OF keeping open BARRIERS
shop on Sunday was considered in n
PENNSYLVANIA case, where it was held that
the business of barber i'll shaving his
customers on Sunday mornings worldly
employment" not "a work of necessity
or charity" The Court said ; at is
argued that the law does not forbid II
person to wash and shave himself on Sun
day, and thus to prepare himself to attend
public worship, or otherwise properly to
enjoy the rest and recuperation which it
was the purpose of the day to give, there
fore another may do it for him without
mourning the condemnation of the law.
This view is not sustained by the
authorities" " 1t is further contended
by the counsel for the defendant that
long continued usage and customs of
society prove that the business of a
barber is by common consent considered
a necessity within the meaning of the law.
And the fercible and exhaustive argu-
ments of Lowrie, G. j., in Commonwealth
against Nesbitt, are arguedupon our con
sideration as decisive of this case. In my
n.nt the points ruled i'll that case
en- r., ,se TO be decided here are in no
and L,le. There it was held that hired
saw fol, without violation of the act Of
rat Height drive his employers family
,wn. !, ch on Sunday in the employers
y.or oe carriage, while here the defend
'''i' Wins that he may lawfully keep
over zoo private shop on Sunday, shaving
:, he fssing the hair of who may come,
- ~ thr his customers intend to go to
nee, hs or not, and whether he is entirely
feels shave himself or not In that,
tho+ tregard to the necessity of the
''''' collar acts done, he claims the right
,ams bccise his ordinary calling on Sun
hing ION other days" "But is it work
thssity? Many persons shave them
ron that day, who are shaved by a
ON other days of the week. And
Hen ne in ten who shave on that day
, on tbs the services of barber. " The
~ - ,,lsosays that the defendant scustom
the ing his shop at 10 o'clock on Sun
4 nv Morning made no difference, and
y lcded. eff the closing Of these
e 10 on Sunday is an Inconvenience to
the hiblic, the remedy rests with the
GO pature, and not with the Court. -
ia ~ LaV Journal.