The Elk Mountain pilot., 1882-02-23
Shaving on Sunday },

IN recent case it was held that keep
ing open BARRIERS shop on Sunday is
not indictable either as y nuisance or a
misdemeanor. It was held not to be q
mislemeanof because penalty for the
violation of the Sunday laws is imposed.
The question then was whether it was a
nuisance, al.dthe Court said !" 1t cannot
be said that q barler-shep is something
swhssh incoInmodes or annoys, or which
pfodtices Inconvenience or damage to
others. On the contrary, the business Of
barberins is SO essential to the comfort
and convenience of the Inhabitants Of
town or city that it may be required as
necessary occupation. To hold that it
becomes nuisance when carried On on
Sunday is u pcrversion Of the term
nuisance. All that can he sai,i of it is
that when prosecuted On Sunday 1t is a
violation OF the statute, and subject TO be
proceeded against as prescribed by law,
but not subject to be indicted rs nuis-
ance. It may shock the moral sense of a
portion Of the community to see the
barber CARRYING on his business With open
doors on Sunday, but produces no iilcon-
venienco Or damage to others, aud there
fore cannot be regarded il legal contem-
plation l. nuisance" alg ln.- ..... F..
The legality OF keeping open q BARRIERS
shop Oh Sunday WAS Considered in q
Pennsylvania case, wLere it was held that
the business Of q barber in shaving his
customers on Sunday morniugis is worldly
employment" rot "a work Of necessity
or charity" The Court said :: cit is
argued that the law does not forbid a
person to wash and shave himself Oh Sun
day and thus to prepare himself to attend
public worship, OF otherwise properly 10
enjoy the rest AID 1recuperation which it
was the purpose oftho day to give. there
fore another may do it for him without
incurring the condemnation Of the Jaw.
This view is not sustained hy the
authorities" It is further contan1ed
by the counsel for the defendant that
long continued usage and customs Of
society prove that the business Of q
barber is by common consent considered
necessity within the meaning Of tho law.
And the fer>ihle and exhaustive argu-
ments OF Lowrie, G. j., i'll COMMONWEALTH
against Nesbitt, are argued Epon our con-
sideration us decisive of this case. lii my
Judgment the points ruled in that case
and those to be decided here are in no
way alike. There it wa, held that hired
servant, without violation of the net of
1874, might drive his employers family
to church on Sunday in the employers
private carriage, while here the defend
ant Claims that he may lawfully keep
open a private shop Oh Sunday, shaving
and dressing the hair Of who may come,
whether his customers intend 20 go to
church OF not, and whether ha is entirely
able to shave himself or net. Ii that,
without regard to tie necessity of the
particular acts done, he claims the right
to exercise his ordinary calling on Sum
day as on other days. "But is it work
Of necessity? Many persons shave thcn-
selves on that day, WHO are shaved by a
barber Oh ctner days of the week. And
not one III ten who shave Oh that day
employs the services of Il barber The
Court alsostys that tie Qcfens.a.l, S custom
of closing his Shop at 10 O'Clock on Sun
day morning made no difference, and
concluded: "lf the closing Of these
shops on Sunday is CT Inconvenience 10
the public, the remedy rests with the
Legislature, and not with the Court. -
At60ny Lac yOUTnul. eua