Case Name: PEOPLE v. LYNCH
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-05-16
Citations: 141 N.Y.S. 728
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. LYNCH.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 141
Pages: 728–730

Head Matter:
(156 App. Div. 601.)
PEOPLE v. LYNCH.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 16, 1913.)
Sunday (§ 7 )—“Wobks of Necessity.”
Under Penal Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40) § 2143, prohibiting all labor on Sunday, except “works of necessity” and charity, which include whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health, or comfort of the .community, defendant’s work in repaving a street in a populous part of the .city under a contract with the city not requiring him to work on Sunday, and without having been directed by any city officer to do so, was not a work of necessity; hence his conviction was proper.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Sunday, Cent. Dig. §§ 14-20; Dec. Dig. § 7.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4728-4737.] Ingraham, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Court of General Sessions, New York County. Michael H. Lynch was convicted of a violation of the Sunday law.
From a judgment affirming the conviction by a city magistrate he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Francis Gilbert, of New York City, for appellant.
Robert C. Taylor, of New York City, for the People.
For otiuir Bases see same topic & § numbee in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The statute under which the defendant was convicted provides as follows:
"All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting the works of necessity and charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health or comfort of the community."
The particular work upon which the defendant was engaged was repaving a street in a populous quarter of the city of New York. He was doing the work under a contract with the city, but his contract did not require him to prosecute the work on Sunday, nor had he been directed so to do by any city official. There are doubtless many cases in which the prosecution of public works on Sunday is needful for the good order, health, or comfort of the community, and therefore permissible under the statute; but this is not in our opinion such a case.
If it had appeared that any city official, charged with the conservation of the good order, health, or comfort of the community, had directed the defendant to proceed with the work on Sunday, we are disposed to think that he would have been absolved from the imputation of a criminal intent if he had complied with the direction. No such justification appears in the present case, and the defendant in pursuing the work acted upon his own responsibility, at the peril of being able to show to- the satisfaction of the court that the work was in' fact one of necessity. In this he has failed.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, and CLARKE, JJ., concur.