Com. v. Chernock
| Decision Date | 13 November 1957 |
| Citation | 145 N.E.2d 920,336 Mass. 384 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Harold CHERNOCK (three cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stephen A. Moynahan, Dist. Atty. and Edward J. Dobiecki, Asst. Dist. Atty., Springfield, for the Commonwealth.
Samuel L. Fein, Justin G. Cavanaugh, and Sherman E. Fein, Springfield, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
The defendant has been convicted in the Superior Court on three complaints which charged that on the respective dated of May 2, 1954, May 30, 1954, and June 6, 1954, he kept 'open his shop at 57 Sumner Avenue, in Springfield, for the purpose of doing business therein, said business not being a work of necessity and charity and said business not coming within the exceptions set out in Section 6 of Chapter 136 of the General Laws as amended.'
The complaints were brought under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 136, § 5, which provides that 'Whoever on the Lord's day keeps open his shop, warehouse or workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business or work, except works of necessity and charity, shall be punished * * *.' The offences with which the defendant is charged are those stated in the first part of the statute, namely, the keeping open of a shop on a Sunday, to which proof that the keeping is a work of necessity or charity is no defence. Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40. Commonwealth v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, 8 N.E. 756; Commonwealth v. Starr, 144 Mass. 359, 361, 11 N.E. 533.
The cases were submitted on the following agreed facts. The defendant conducts a combination Kosher and super market which, because of his religious convictions, is closed to business every Saturday and Jewish holiday but remains open to business on Sundays. On the days specified in the complaints, which were Sundays, the defendant kept his market open after ten o'clock in the forenoon and until closing time and did sell to the public Kosher meats, bakery goods, vegetables and canned goods of all types. It is apparent that the facts show violations of § 5 and do not bring the defendant within the limitations provided by § 6, as amended, namely, that § 5 shall not prohibit 'the selling [or delivering] of kosher meat by any person who, according to his religious belief, observes Saturday as the Lord's day by closing his place of business during the day until six o'clock in the afternoon or the keeping open of his shop on the Lord's day for the sale of kosher meat between the hours of six o'clock and ten o'clock in the forenoon.'
The defendant's exceptions are to the denial of motions to dismiss on the grounds 'That the complaints do not set forth a crime fully, plainly, substantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zayre Corp. v. Attorney General
...after the decision in Gallagher, this court, in reliance on that decision and prior decisions of this court, Commonwealth v. Chernock, 336 Mass. 384, 145 N.E.2d 920 (1957); Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40 (1877), held G.L. c. 136, §§ 5, 6, constitutional and rejected, as had the Supreme C......
-
Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. v. Gallagher
...the statute against attacks based upon the state Constitution. See Commonwealth v. Has, 1877, 122 Mass. 40; Commonwealth v. Chernock, 1957, 336 Mass. 384, 145 N.E.2d 920. The federal complaint now before us seeks a declaration that certain provisions of the "Lord's day" statute of Massachus......
-
Gowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc Two Guys From v. Ginley Braunfeld v. Brown, HARRISON-ALLENTOW
...Hiller v. State, 1914, 124 Md. 385, 92 A. 842 (prohibiting sports); Commonwealth v. Has, 1877, 122 Mass. 40; Commonwealth v. Chernock, 1957, 336 Mass. 384, 145 N.E.2d 920; Scougale v. Sweet, 1900, 124 Mich. 311, 82 N.W. 1061 (considered dictum); State v. Petit, 1898, 74 Minn. 376, 77 N.W. 2......
-
Carolina Amusement Co. v. Martin
...origin and was not a day of rest statute although the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had held otherwise in Commonwealth v. Chernock, 336 Mass. 384, 145 N.E.2d 920. Chernock was a stockholder and manager of Crown Kosher and had been convicted in the State court for violation of the ......