Ungericht v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1889
• Citation: 119 Ind. 379,21 N.E. 1082
• Parties: Ungericht v. State.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

119 Ind. 379

21 N.E. 1082

Ungericht

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 19, 1889.

Appeal from criminal court, Marion county; William Irvin, Judge.

Griffith & Potts, for appellant. The Attorney General and John L. Mitchell, for the State.

Coffey, J.

This was a prosecution by the state against the appellant, instituted before the mayor of the city of Indianapolis, for desecration of the Sabbath. The affidavit charges that John Ungericht, late of said city and county, on the 18th day of March, 1888, at the city and county aforesaid, was then and there found unlawfully at common labor and engaged in his usual occupation and avocation, to-wit, that of a barber, and being then and there engaged in shaving one Jacob C. Juncker at and for the price of 15 cents, such common labor, work, and avocation not being then and there a work of charity or necessity, and the said John Ungericht being then and there a person over 14 years of age, and not a person who conscientiously observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, nor a traveler, nor a family removing, nor the keeper of a tollbridge or toll-gate, nor a ferryman acting as such, and the said 18th day of March, A. D. 1888, being the first day of the week, commonly called “Sunday.” The appellant was convicted before the mayor; and, upon appeal to the criminal court, he was again tried and convicted, and now appeals to this court, and assigns as error that the criminal court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Section 2000, Rev. St. 1881, is as follows: “Whoever, being over fourteen years of age, is found on the first day of the week, commonly called ‘Sunday,’ rioting, hunting, fishing, quarreling, at common labor or engaged in his usual avocation, (works of charity and necessity only excepted,) shall be fined in any sum not more than ten nor less than one dollar; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect such as conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, travelers, families removing, keepers of toll-bridges and toll-gates, and ferrymen acting as such.” It is earnestly contended by the appellant that the matter of shaving is a work of necessity, and that, therefore, it falls within one of the statutory exceptions, and that he is not liable to criminal prosecution for performing such work of necessity on Sunday. Many legal definitions of the word “necessity” are to be found in the authorities, but the following from the Chicago Legal News, (volume 12, p. 44,) seems to give the result of all the authorities upon the subject: “The law contemplates that the community has a general need that all should rest on Sunday. Most of the affairs and doings of week-days are less important than this need of a rest-day, but some few are superior. To keep the body physically sustained by food; to provide the facilities for worship during some hours of the day, and for restful mental occupation during others; to nurse and heal the sick; to provide prompt burial for the dead; these and some other objects are superior to...