Sullivan v. Maine Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1889
• Citation: Sullivan v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 8 L.R.A. 427, 82 Me. 196, 19 A. 169 (Me. 1889)
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 169

82 Me. 196

SULLIVAN

v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 28, 1889.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Kennebec county.

Action by Maria E. Sullivan against the Maine Central Railroad Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted.

H. M. Heath and O. A. Tuell, for plaintiff. F. A. Wilson and C. F. Woodard, for defendant.

FOSTER, J. The defendant's contention in support of the single question raised by the exceptions is founded upon the erroneous assumption that riding upon Sunday for exercise, and for no other purpose, is a violation of the statute in relation to the observance of the Lord's day. The statute is not to be so construed. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of a statute which expressly excepts from its prohibition works of necessity or charity. Rev. St. c. 124, § 20.

And this exception may properly be said to cover everything which is morally fit and proper, under the particular circumstances of the case, to be done upon the Sabbath.

Tested by this rule, our own court, in O'Connell v. Lewiston, 65 Me. 34, and Davidson v. Portland, 69 Me. 116, has held that walking out in the open air upon the Sabbath for exercise is not a violation of the statute.

In other jurisdictions, also, it has been held not to be unlawful to ride to a funeral, (Home v. Meakin, 115 Mass. 326;) walking to prepare medicine for a sick child, (Gorman v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 65;) riding to visit a sick sister, (Cronan v. Boston, 136 Mass. 384;) traveling to visit a sick friend, (Doyle v. Railroad Co., 118 Mass. 195;) a servant riding to prepare needful food for her employer, (King v. Savage, 121 Mass. 303;) a father riding to visit his two boys, (McClary v. Lowell, 44 Vt. 116;) walking for exercise, (Hamilton v. Bosto, 14 Allen, 475;) and walking partly for exercise and partly to make a social call, (Barker v. Worcester, 139 Mass. 74.)

The statute was never intended as an arbitrary interference with the comfort and conduct of individuals, when necessary to the promotion of health, in walking or riding in the open air for exercise. The prohibition is against unnecessary walking or riding. As a general rule, the jury, under proper instructions from the court, must determine this question from the circumstances presented to them.

In this case we can perceive no error in the instructions, and the exceptions must be overruled.

Nor do we think the verdict...