The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-09-04

counsel that in the town of Manning,
where defendant does business, he is
authorized by ordinance to deliver ice
and beef in summer time on Sunday,
before 9 o'clock a. M, and this ordi-
nance is urged a., a shield for defend
ant. Such ordinance can not avail
him. No municipal ordinance can le-
gally authorize what a statute for
bids.
"In conclusion, we may concede
that, in modern life both ice and fresh
meats, however they may have been
regarded in former days, are now nec-
essaries, but that will not justify
their delivery on Sunday any more
than the conceded fact that flour,
meal, potatoes, rice, bacon and butter
are necessaries will justify a grocer
in opening his store and delivering
such articles on Sunday.
"Such being my views, must over
rule all Of defendants grounds Of
appeal, despite the very able and ex-
haustive argument of his counsel,
which has very much impressed, but
has failed to convince me. [ can not
hold that running a delivery wagon
and delivering ice and fresh meat at
the houses Of the people on the
Lords day is work morally fit and
proper to be done that day
Supreme Court Decision.
The supreme court sustains the de-
cree Of Judge Prince on every point.
The court holds, in the decision writ
ten by Justice Woods, that the SELL
ing or delivering Of ice or meat on
Sunday could not be termed an act
of necessity. True, what might have
been considered luxury in one gen.
Grafton is a necessity in the next and
there are many things that could be
done on Sunday now that would have
violated the law 50 years ago: The
object in the statute was evidently to
set aside one day Of the week for rest
and the contemplation Of the higher
things Of life and only works Of nee
essity or mercy should be done. The
court holds that it should be careful
in defining what are works Of neces-
sity and mercy; thai by a slight
stretching Of the terms Of the statute
almost anything might be deemed nee
essary or merciful. Therefore so lG/g
as the statute stands as it is it is best
to consider the decision Of the circuit
court correct and it is affirmed.
Just what effect this decision will
have in bringing other eases IS not
yet known, but it ' is very probable
that others will be brought in some
of the counties.
The decision of the supreme court
is as follows:
"The defendant, William James,
was convicted before a magistrate OF
the offense Of violating the Sunday
law, contained in criminal code, Sec
ton 500. The circnit court on appeal
affirmed the judgment of the magis-
trate.
"The defendant is a butcher and
ice dealer in the town of Manning. He
was arrested on three warrants charg-
ing three separate offenses Of selling
ice and meat md delivering ice and
meat to three different persons; and
carrying on his ordinary business by
such sales and deliveries on Sunday,
18th August. 1907.
"Contrary to the contention of the
counsel for the prosecution the mag
istrate ordered the three charges to
be consolidated into one, holding
whatever might be the number OF
sales and deliveries, as all were on the
same day, they constituted but one
doing or exercising worldly labor,
business or work Of the defendant s
ordinary calling, within the terms OF
the statute. Our statute is the same
as the English statute. In deciding un-
der that statute the precise point
her involved, Lord Mansfield said:
"'On the construction Of the act
Of parliament the offense is "exercls-
ing his ordinary trade on the Lords
dav, and that without any fraction Of
a day, hours or minutes. It is but one
entire offense, whether longer or
shorter in point Of duration.