State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 30 June 1844
• Citation: 26 N.C. 400,4 Ired. 400
• Parties: STATE v. JOSEPH J. WILLIAMS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

26 N.C. 400

4 Ired. 400

STATE

v.JOSEPH J. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1844.

A profanation of Sunday, by performing labor on that day, is not an indictable offence in this State.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Martin County, at Fall Term 1843, his Honor Judge BAILEY presiding.

The defendant was tried upon the following indictment, to wit, “The jurors for the State upon their oath present, That Joseph J. Williams, late of Martin, being a common Sabbath breaker and profaner of the Lord's day. commonly called Sunday, at and in the county of Martin on the 10th day of July 1842, the said day being Sunday, and on divers other days both before and since the said 10th day of July 1842, which other days were also Sundays, unlawfully, wilfully and with force and arms, for his own lucre and gain, and not for any charitable purpose or being induced thereto by any supposed necessity, did cause certain men slaves, to wit, Elias, George and Talbot, being the property of him the said Joseph J. Williams and being then and there under his control to work and labor on the farm of the said Joseph J. Williams in making and putting up enclosures and fences around and about the corn-field and whiskey distillery of him the said Joseph J. Williams to the common nuisance of the good people of North Carolina and against the peace and dignity of the State.” To This indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty. On the trial, the witness for the State swore, that he was the overseer for the defendant during the years 1841, 1842 and 1843--that sometime in the year 1842, he, the defendant, having lost some corn and shoats, and suspecting his slaves, including those mentioned in the indictment, of stealing the property or knowing who had stolen it, directed the witness to put them to work on the Sabbath day and continue them at work on the succeeding Sabbath days, until they confessed that they had stolen the property or discovered who were the thieves--that he, the witness, put all the negro men to work on the Sabbath day and worked them three Sabbaths in succession--that the work consisted in putting up fences round his field and whiskey distillery--that after working them the third Sabbath, the defendant, discovering who had stolen his property, did not compel them to work any longer. The witness further stated that the negroes did not work the whole of the days as before mentioned, but commenced work after breakfast and ended about 12 o'clock or dinner time, and that their work was not of much value to the defendant, and that he did not make them work for the profit arising therefrom, but as a punishment for not confessing that they had stolen his property or discovering who had done it. It was admitted that the place where the work was done was at such a distance from any public highway, that the laborers could not be seen, by persons passing to and fro.

The Judge charged the jury that if they believed the witness introduced on the part of the State, the defendant was guilty as charged in the bill of indictment. The jury found the defendant guilty and judgment being rendered pursuant thereto, the defendant appealed.

Attorney General for the State .

Badger for the defendant .

RUFFIN, C. J.

The conduct of the defendant is contrary to the usages of North Carolina, the general welfare, and likewise to the law of the land. It seems to us to be very reprehensible; for we perfectly concur in the eloquent passage in the Commentaries, on the propriety and political necessity of keeping one day of the week for the purposes of public worship, relaxation and refreshment. 4 Bl. 63. The institution, wherever it has existed, has proved to be a great good, promoting private virtue and happiness among all classes, and the public morals and prosperity. It is, therefore, fit, that every commonwealth, and especially one, in which Christianity is generally professed, should set apart by law a day for those purposes and enforce its due observance by such sanctions as may seem adequate. By a statute in this State, the profanation of Sunday, by working in a person's ordinary calling, is punished by a pecuniary fine, recoverable by a summary proceeding before a justice of the peace. Rev. Stat. c. 119. s. 1. As that statute does not make the offence indictable, it is not punishable in that mode, unless it be so at the common law. That we have now to enquire of, since, although we may unite with the great bulk of our fellow citizens in reprobating an act bringing scandal on our own people, and giving so much offence to the most moral and pious among us, we are, nevertheless, not to punish the act, contrary to the law.

The indictment is for compelling certain slaves, belonging to the defendant, to work on several Sundays in the ordinary calling of the defendant on his farm. It lays those acts to be to the common nuisance and concludes at common law.

We do not find it any where stated, that doing secular work on Sunday is per se an offence at common law. There is, indeed, in the Crown Circuit Companion a precedent, (which is also adopted in 2 Chitty. Cr. L. 20) of an indictment against a butcher as a common Sabbath breaker and profaner of Sunday, for having, within certain times, kept a common public and open shop in a town on Sunday and sold therein meat to divers persons. Mr. East also, speaking of offences against God and religion, remarks, that the prefanation of Sunday is by a variety of statutes punishable in particular instances by summary process before magistrates; and then adds, that “it is also said to be indictable at the common law.” And he cites the precedent just mentioned. In the precedent the act is laid as a nuisance; as it is in the indictment before us. There is however, a marked difference between the cases; the work here not being in a town, nor such as in itself is likely to annoy any person, except as the want of a decent respect for the sentiments of our citizens generally and their sense of religious duty might render it offensive to them, whether they saw it or only heard of it. It was in a rural situation, gathered no crowd, disturbed no body?? For working on a farm would not seem in itself a molestation to others, more than cooking meals on that day at one's home or taking a journey either to or from one's home, the latter being, all, customary acts in all Christian Countries, including our own.

The truth is, that it offends us, not so much because it disturbs us in practising for ourselves the religious duties, or enjoying the salutary repose or recreation, of that day, as that it is in itself a breach of God's law, and a violation of the party's own religous duty. But we do not perceive how it can become an offence at common law even when the labor is both...