Hull v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1889
• Citation: 22 N.E. 117,120 Ind. 153
• Parties: Hull v. State.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

120 Ind. 153

22 N.E. 117

Hull

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 27, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Miami county; James M. Brown, Judge.

S. D. Carpenter, for appellant. E. T. Reasoner and The Attorney General, for the State.

Mitchell, J.

The appellant was found guilty of having violated the provisions of section 1988, Rev. St. 1881, by disturbing a collection of persons, known as the “Salvation Army,” who were met together for religious worship. It is insisted that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. A number of witnesses testified that the appellant entered a room where persons adhering to the above-named society or organization were assembled for the purpose of conducting religious services according to their accustomed method, with a cigar in his mouth, and without removing his hat, and that he persisted in conducting himself in this offensive manner after he had been courteously requested to desist. The evidence tends to show that his conduct was such as to divert the attention of the audience from the services then in progress to himself, and members of the assembly testified that they were disturbed by his behavior. There was conflict in the testimony, but it is manifest that the jury believed that which tended to establish the foregoing statement. Such conduct as that above described is wholly indefensible, and was well calculated to disturb an assemblage of worshipers. McLain v. Matlock, 7 Ind. 525. It makes no difference that the method of worship of those assembled was singular or uncommon. The protection of the statute is extended to all, irrespective of creed, opinion, or mode of worship. Persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship, by any method which is not indecent and unlawful, have a right to do so without being molested or disturbed. Whart. Crim. Law, § 1556 a; Gillett, Crim. Law, § 381.

After charging that the appellant unlawfully molested and disturbed a certain collection of divers inhabitants of the state, who were met together for religious worship, the information concludes with the allegation that the acts and conduct of the appellant therein described were to the disturbance of certain persons named, who were there present at the meeting. It is now contended that there is a fatal variance, in that the proof fails to show that all those named were disturbed. The point is not well taken. It is settled that where an indictment or information contains allegations descriptive of the...