Commonwealth v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 19 May 1904
• Citation: 70 N.E. 1017,185 Mass. 551
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. ALEXANDER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

185 Mass. 551

70 N.E. 1017

COMMONWEALTH v. ALEXANDER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 19, 1904

COUNSEL

John P. Leahy, for defendant.

John D McLaughlin, Second Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

This is a criminal complaint brought under Rev. Laws, c. 98, § 2, for a violation of the statute in relation to the observance of the Lord's Day. This section is as follows: '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, or takes part in pay sport, game, play or public diversion, except a concert of sacred music or an entertainment given by a religious or charitable society the proceeds of which, if any, are to be devoted exclusively to a charitable or religious purpose, shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifth dollars for each offence; and the proprietor, manager or person in charge of such game, sport, play or public diversion, except as aforesaid, shall be punished by a fine not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars for each offence.' The Congregation Beth Israel is a corporation organized under general laws for religious purposes, and having its place of worship in Cambridge. Its purpose, according to its charter, is 'the establishment and maintenance of a synagogue for the public worship of God in accordance with the principles and doctrines of the Hebraic religion, and for such other charitable, benevolent and religious objects as the corporation may from time to time deem advisable.' The corporation received a license from the selectmen of Revere 'to conduct a charitable entertainment at Crescent Garden Boulevard on Sunday afternoon and evening, August 9, 1903.' A committee of four members was appointed, by vote of the corporation, to take charge of the entertainment, and the defendant was made chairman of the committee. On this Sunday the defendant was in charge of the entertainment, which was given under the auspices of the corporation, and which consisted of songs, and other features commonly known as 'vaudeville.' The public was admitted to the entertainment, an admission fee was charged, and the total receipts were taken by the committee. Incidental expenses for the performers, lights, attendance, and other things were paid by the committee, and the balance was retained and paid to the corporation. Upon these facts the defendant asked the court to rule that he was entitled to an acquittal as matter of law, and the question before us arises upon the refusal of the judge to give this ruling.

The only charge in the complaint is that the defendant 'was the person in charge of a certain public diversion, to wit, a theatrical performance, given on said day,' etc. The statute above quoted is the only one which he is charged with having violated. The only question is whether he was within the exception. The report states what this was an entertainment given by the religious society referred to. It is not contended, and it cannot successfully be contended, that the corporation is not a religious society within the meaning of the...