Commonwealth v. Shannihan
| Decision Date | 19 October 1887 |
| Citation | 145 Mass. 99,13 N.E. 347 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. SHANNIHAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from superior court, Worcester county; PITMAN, Judge.
Complaint to the central district court of Worcester, charging that the defendant, on July 24, 1887, “the same being the Lord's day, at Worcester, in said county, did unlawfully keep open his shop there situate for the purpose of doing business therein, to-wit, selling goods, wares, and merchandise therein, on said Lord's day, as aforesaid, the same not being works of necessity or charity.” At the trial in the superior court for Worcester county the defendant, before the jury was impaneled, moved to quash the complaint “because nowhere in the complaint is it alleged that the defendant does not come within the exceptions mentioned in section 2 of chapter 391 of the Acts and Resolves of 1887.” The motion to quash was overruled, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant alleged exceptions.
J.E. Sullivan, for defendant.
The complaint is dated July 25, 1887, and charges the commission of an offense July 24, 1887, and is founded on Pub.St. c. 98, § 2. An act to further regulate the observance of the Lord's day was passed and approved June 9, 1887. It follows that this complaint was made, and the offense committed since the passage of the amendment. The defendant claims that certain exceptions were made to section 2, c. 98, and that this complaint should show that he does not come within the exceptions. Up to the time this amendment was passed, it was an offense to keep open a shop for any purpose. Com. v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, 8 N.E.Rep. 756. This amendment excepts certain things, for the doing of which it is lawful to keep open a shop. Although the amendment is in a subsequent statute, it relates to and has reference to Pub.St. c. 98, § 2, and is so incorporated in it that said section can be read only in connection with the amendment. The exception in such cases must be negatived. Steel v. Smith, 1 Barn. & Ald. 94. Pub.St. c. 98, § 2, read without reference to the amendment, would make punishable the keeping open of a shop, warehouse, or workhouse. The legislature evidently intended afterwards to exempt certain things from the operation of this section, and they are mentioned in the amendment mentioned before. This section cannot show what things are punishable, without mentioning the things excepted in the amendment. Those cases not...
To continue reading
Request your trial