Murray v. The Commonwealth
| Citation | 24 Pa. 270 |
| Parties | Murray <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1855 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
CERTIORARI to a justice of the peace in the city and county of Philadelphia.
Tilghman, for plaintiff in error.—The Schuylkill river was a common highway before the passage of the Act of 8th April, 1815, incorporating the Schuylkill Navigation Company: 14 Ser. & R. 80. That Act merely modified its character, by requiring payment of toll as a condition to use the navigation. By the 19th and 20th sections of the Act for its incorporation, the company was required to have the locks kept open "at all times." The Act of 11th April, 1845, provided that no part of any Act of Assembly should be construed to require any canal or railroad company to attend their works on the Sabbath-day. It was not intended as a prohibition.
The use of a highway on Sunday for some purposes is lawful. But the legality or illegality of a particular use of it on that day, by another person, is not for the keeper of a lock or toll gate to decide; the remedy for a violation of the law is by legal process. Detention on the highway is not part of the penalty. Travelling is not within the prohibition of the Act, and works of necessity are excepted. If the employment be of such a kind as is necessary to the exercise or enjoyment of a right, it is a work of necessity within the meaning of the exception in the Act. By a work of necessity is not meant, by the statute, a physical and absolute necessity; but any labor, business, or work, which is morally fit or proper to be done on that day, under the circumstances of the particular case: 4 Cushing 243, Flagg v. Milbury.
The opinion of the Court was delivered, March 26, 1855, by LOWRIE, J.
This is a summary conviction of a lock-keeper of the Schuylkill Navigation Company, for attending to his business, as such, on the Lord's day, by opening the locks for the passage of boats. Is this a civil offence? We think not.
The Schuylkill river is a public highway; and as people are not forbidden by law, and therefore have a right, for some purposes, to pass along it, even on the Lord's day, the Navigation Company must keep it open, and, for this purpose, must have lock-keepers to act for them. There may, indeed, be unlawful travel on Sunday, and for such travel there can be no right to have the locks opened; but the criminality of the lock-keeper is not proved by the criminality of the travel, because, as agent of the company, he is bound to keep the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...assistance as he might find necessary, and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that such travel was lawful. In the case of Murray v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. 270, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adjudged the following propositions: "(1) A lockkeeper in the employ of the Schuylkill Navigat......
-
Com. v. Bauder
...of the Act, despite any interpretive exceptions to its operations. The cases cited (Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 34 Pa. 398; Murray v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. 270; Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Railroad Co., 54 Pa. 401, though this case does not make an exception to the statute; Singer v. Brith Achim......
-
Dugan v. The State
... ... Other States have ... exercised for many years similar jurisdiction under grants ... from Virginia. McFall v. Commonwealth, 2 ... Metc. (Ky.) 394. The older authorities are all to the effect ... that one State may punish crimes committed upon a navigable ... stream, ... 189; McGatrick v ... Wason, 4 Ohio St. 566; Hennersdorf v ... State, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 597, 8 S.W. 926; ... Dixon v. State, 76 Ala. 89; Murray ... v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. 270; Troewert v ... Decker, 51 Wis. 46, 8 N.W. 26; State v ... Goff, 20 Ark. 289. But the appellant can get no ... ...
-
The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Yopst
...8 S.W. 926; Ashbrandt v. State, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 599, 8 S.W. 927; Dixon v. State, 76 Ala. 89; Parmalee v. Wilks, 22 Barb. 539; Murray v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. 270. As appellee's complaint shows that the contract was made on Sunday, the burden is upon him to show that a necessity existed for ......
-
Sunday law in the nineteenth century.
...a precise rule for cases of this kind, some of which come very near the line"). (535) Goff, 20 Ark. at 291. (536) Murray v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. 270, 270-71 (1855) (noting that the Act of 1815 required the company to open the canal even on the Sabbath (537) See id. at 271-72 (pointing out t......