The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-08

fierson, OIL; Com. vs.. Waldman, i40 Pa.
| 81 SO; Com. We. Dextra, 143 Mass, 2s
tngericht vs. State. i2s Ind, $40; state
vs.. Frederick. 40 Ark, 3i7.) The num-
Der Of these authorities certainly out
weigh the three cases cited by the judge.
especially when those cases are analysed
they are shown not to be in point.
To sustain the contention that the bust
ness Of a barber in shaving his customers
on sunday is not a work OF necessity. l
quote from Com. VS.. Jacobus. L Pa. Leg.
Gaz. Rep. 49i, which presents the follow
Ing argument against the proposition that
the pursuing OF said occupation is not a
work OF necessity: 1T is argued that as
the law does not forbid a person to wash
and shave himself on Sunday, and thus
prepare himself to attend public worship.
or ortherwise properly enjoy the rest and
refrigeration which 1t was the purpose OF
the day to give. therefore another may 40
~ for him, without mourning the condem-
nation of the law. This view is not sus-
tanned by the authorities" The same argu-
ment (Which was not advanced in Judge
Aliens opinion, but which Is at least an
Ingenious one in sustaining his conten-
ton on the proposition above referred to)
was also discussed in an old Scottish case,
In which 1t was said: That unless work
ing persons, who do not themselves shave
their boards, are allowed TO resort to bar
Der shops on Sunday, many decently dis
/ pOseu men WoulO DC prevented from IRE
quenting place OF worship. and from as
sociating with their families and friends
for want OF personal cleanliness AS is
said in the note to State vs.. Frederick, 55
Am. Rep 555, quoting the charge OF a
judge OF nlsi prius COURT: III man is
! guilty for shaving another on Sunday, the
man who shaves would be equally guilty
II a man We're brought before him charged
with shaving himself. ] should In ordinary
cases order his discharge because 1t seems
TO me that it would be work of necessl-
~ Whatever man may do for himself,
he may properly do for some one else I"
II Will be seen, however, that, although
this position may be deemed plausible.
yet the proposition has been before the
courts of this country, and wherever the
contention has been made. the courts OF
last resort have drawn a distinction be-
tween person shaving himself and per-
son who shaves another in his place of
business. following the same as his usual
employment For instance in Com VS..
Waldman, $40 Penn. St. so, the chief JUS
tice rendering the opinion said we are
now asked to say that shaving is work
of necessity. 1t is perhaps as much a lie
cessity as washing the face, taking a bath,
or performing any other act of personal
cleanliness. man may shave himself,
or have a servant shave him on the Lord s
day, without violation OF the act OF 1921,
ness on that day by barber, and the fol-
lowing Of his worldly employment of shay
ing his customers is quite another matter;
and while we concede 1t may be gTat
convenience TO many persons, We arc not
prepared to say. as a question OF law, that
, IL is work OF necessity. As has been
said in the note to the case of State VS.,
Lorry, 80 Am. Rep $50: 1T might as,well
be said that because a person could not
decently resort to church or associate with
his family, unless he was decently clothed
and fed: therefore the clothiers, butchers
and the baker shops should be kept open
on Sunday for the convenience of such per-
sons If the keeping open of barber
shop on Sunday is work OF necessity,
then It must he conceded that all things
incident to the pursuit of that business
becomes a work of necessity also. There
fore barber may purchase his razors on
Sunday from the hardware stores and for
/, his convenience the hardware stores may
, be kept open. The soap dealer and those
who sell bayrum etc. must stay open to
. aid the barber In pursuing his necessary
, occupation. The laundryman may clean
his linen: the razor sharpener may sharpen
/, his razors, and all other employments In
cldent to the pursuing of this work OF ne
cessity are likewise to be correlated as
necessary. and for the convenience Of bar
/. day,
Again, II taking shave is an act OF
necessity, and therefore is lawful TO be
, done on Sunday, why not the mending oil
shoes. the patching of clothes, etc, be also
deemed work of necessity, for 1t Is as
, uncomely to appear on Sunday with rent
!. clothing or with hole in your shoe, as
n IT is with an unshaven face. Therefore
II the barber can shave on Sunday, the
shoemaker can patch shoes on Sunday
and even the shoedealer could sell shoes
on Sunday; the tailor could patch clothes
, on Sunday, or the cothier could sell
. clothes on Sunday. II will be seen that Il
we apply the test laid down that there Is
hardly an occupation pursued that might
not be called an absolute work OF neces'
sity under certain circumstances; ant
: therefore could be pursued on Sunday
This Is certainly not the la'
1t is conceded that circumstances altei
cases. The cases cited by Judge Allen
from this State. are illustrative of this
point In the Nelson case. 5 s w. s27
o cited by the Judge, Il was held that, where
a horse carrying tho United States mai
had become lame on Sunday. and where
there was no other available horse iol
service. and where the lawful journey &c
; be made upon that day could not havt
!, been pursued without having the horse
shod, that the blacksmith would not b.
,, violating the law in shooting that horse or
| Sunday. IL will be noted that the nors'
became lame on Sunday. II will be fur
Their noted from an inspection of this opin
ion. that other horses could not be obtain
ed. Therefore under the peculiar circum
stances Of the case, II was held TO be I
/ work OF necessity. But II the contention
OF Judge allen is correct. II went further
/ II held that the blacksmith could pursue
. under all circumstances the occupation o
blacksmithng upon Sunday; Just as a
= barber, under certain circumstances
: might shave person. it being under II
peculiar circumstances a work Of neces
4 sity: and because of that fact as con
4 tended by the Judge, his occupation be
: comes work OF necessity under all cir
; cumstanees and may be pursued on Sunds
/ as on any other day.
$ 1t is generally question of fact as I
r whether or not particular act is wor
= OF necessity For instance 1t has bee
z held that an ice plant, which may lawful
r run on Monday, and in order to pursu
that lawful occupation on a secular day
d Is compelled to run part OF the time o
I Sunday, that that is deemed, under tn
n peculiar circumstances of that occupation
g a work OF necessity. This is the Henners
IT dcrf case, cited in the opinion referre
r TO.
g / can not conceive how It can be con
L. -