Iron County register., 1880-07-01
Shaving on sunday.


In a recent case it was held that keep
ing open barber's shop on Sunday Is
not indictable either as q nuisance or Q
misdemeanor. II was held not to be a
misdemeanor because penalty for the
violation of the Sunday laws Is imposed.
The question then was whether IL was
a nuisance and the court said: a. II can
not be said that BARRIERS shop Is some
thing which incommodes or annoys, or
which produces Inconvenience or dam
age to others. On the contrary the busi-
ness of barbering Is so essential to the
comfort and convenience Of the inhabit-
ants of a town or city that II may be
regarded as q necessary occupation. To
hold that it becomes a nuisance when
carried on on Sunday Ia perversion Of
the term nuisance All that can be
said of it is that when prosecuted on
Sunday il is q violation of the statute
and subject to be prosecuted against as
prescribed by law, but not subject to be
indicted as q nuisance. It may shock
the moral sense of portion OF the COM
munity to see the barber carrying on
his business with open doors on Sunday.
damage to others and therefore cannot
be regarded in legal contemplation q
nuisance"
The legality of keeping open bar
ber's shop on Sunday was considered in
Pennsylvania case, where It was held
that the business Of q barber in shaving
his customers on Sunday morning Is
worldly employment" not "a work
of necessity or charity" The court
said: " 1t Is argued that as the law
does not forbid q person to wash and
shave himself on Sunday, and thus to
prepare himself to attend public worship
or otherwise properly to enjoy the rest
and recuperation which it was the pur-
pose of the day to give, therefore
another may do it for him without
incurring the condemnation of the
law. This view is not sustained by
the authorities" "It is further
contended by the counsel for the de-
fendant that long continued usage and
customs Of society prove that the busi-
ness Of q barber Is by common consent
considered necessity within the mean
ing of the law. And the forcible and
exhaustive arguments Of Lowric, G. j.,
in Commonwealth against Nesbit, are
urged upon our consideration rs decisive
of this case. In my judgment the points
ruled in that case and those TO be de-
cided here are in no way alike. There
it was held that q hired servant, with
out violation of the act of 1894, might
drive his employers family to church
on Sunday In the employers private
carriage, while here the defendant
claims that he may lawfully keep open
q private shop on Sunday, shaving and
dressing the hair of whom may come,
whether his customers intend to 90 to
church or not, and whether he Is en-
tirely able to shave himself or not. In
that, without regard to the necessity Of
the particular acts done, he claims the
right to exercise his ordinary calling
on Sunday as on other days" "But 10
it work Of necessity Many persons
shave themselves on that day, who are
shaved by q barber on other days of the
week. And not one in ten who shave
on that day employ the services Of .
barber" The court also say that de-
fendant's custom Of closing his shop at
ten o'clock on Sunday mornings made
no difference, and conclude: II the
closing of these shops on Sunday Ii an
Inconvenience to the public the remedy
rests with the Legislature and not with
the court"
In case in 1897. an apprentice to .
barber in Scotland, bound by his inden-
lures "not to absent himself from his
masters business on holiday or week
day, late hours or early, without leave"
went away on Sundays without leave
and without shaving his masters custo-
mers. Held, by the Lords that he could
not lawfully be required to attend his
masters shop on Sundays, for the pur-
pose of shaving the customers; that work
and all other sorts Of handicraft being
illegal, in England As well as Scotland,
not being works Of necessity, mercy, or
charity. Lord Chancellor Cottenham
said: =" This is case of great import
ance," and that the work ''is one Of
mere convenience. Lord Wynford
concurred saying, "it was not neccssa-
~ that people should be shaved ON Sun
day in q public shop; IL was not IN act
of mercy, it was clearly an act OF handi-
craft" Lord Brougham also concurred
saying: "The object Of the respondent
was gain; and he whose object was gain
did not come within the exception.
The necessity contemplated by the ex-
ception in the statute was the necessity
of the person who worked. and not OF
said in the court below that unless
WOIkl0k ROloouop VIM w NV tnCAA-
selves shave their boards were allowed
to resort to the barber shops on Sum
days, many decently disposed men
would be prevented from frequenting
places Of worship, and from associating
with their families or friends, from
want of personal cleanliness. But why
should they not do the work on Satur-
day as the people did in Glasgow, and
In other towns where no sort of work
was allowed to be done on Sundayf Il
might as well be said that because .
person could not decently resort to
church, or associate with his family,
unless he was decently clothed and fed,
therefore the butchers' and the bakers
shops should be kept open ON Sunday
morning for the convenience of such
persons. That was not the practice;
the parties took good care 70 provide
themselves on Saturdays with food and
clothing. Albany Lao journal.