Gaddis v. State

• Decision Date: 04 December 1920
• Docket Number: 21578
• Citation: 180 N.W. 590,105 Neb. 303
• Parties: ALPHEUS GADDIS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

180 N.W. 590

105 Neb. 303

ALPHEUS GADDIS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 21578

Supreme Court of Nebraska

December 4, 1920

ERROR to the district court for Furnas county: CHARLES E. ELDRED JUDGE. Reversed and dismissed.

Judgment of the district court reversed and prosecution dismissed.

Frank J. Munday and J. F. Fults, for plaintiff in error.

Clarence A. Davis, Attorney General, and J. B. Barnes, contra.

ROSE J. MORRISSEY, C. J., not sitting.

OPINION

ROSE, J.

In the district court for Furnas county Alpheus Gaddis, defendant was convicted under the accusation that on November 9, 1919, he did "unlawfully interrupt and molest a certain religious society, to wit, the Christian Church of Beaver City, Nebraska, and the members thereof, while said members were met together for the purpose of worship." Rev. St. 1913, sec. 8754. For that misdemeanor defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 15 and costs of prosecution, taxed at $ 23.30. As plaintiff in error he presents for review the record of his trial.

The principal assignment of error is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Under this head it is argued that there was an utter failure to prove that defendant violated any statute of the state or any rite, discipline, rule or usage of the church society, or that he unlawfully interrupted or molested the religious meeting or any member of the congregation, or that he acted in an improper or disorderly manner. In this connection it is further argued that interruption of a religious service is justified, if it results from the exercise of a lawful right becomingly asserted.

Apparently relying on the right to charge the offense in the language of the statute, the prosecutor did not mention in the information any specific act or acts constituting a misdemeanor. What defendant did, if anything, to justify his conviction must therefore be found alone in the testimony of witnesses. In describing what was said and done the witnesses were not entirely harmonious, but the material facts are not in dispute. Defendant was a charter member of the Christian Church of Beaver City, a religious society which had been in existence for 30 years. For Bible school, preaching and communion the congregation convened Sunday morning, November 9, 1919. The minister's text was the Lord's Supper or the Communion. In the midst of the sermon the minister said in substance, that the deacons in conducting communion services had a right to pass a member whom they believed to be unworthy. At this point defendant arose from his pew and interrupted the discourse. Some of the expressions directed to the minister by defendant, as recollected by witnesses, may be paraphrased as follows: "You are preaching wrong." "You have gone too far." "You are touching on a matter between the communicant and God Himself." Defendant's own version of what he said to the minister is: "You have no authority for what you are saying. You have already said too much." After interrupting and correcting the minister, defendant, without leaving his place, turned his back to the pulpit, asked permission to speak, and addressed the congregation, saying, among other things, in respect to communion, that no one had a right to judge another, and...