§ 740. Blasphemy.-The common law recognizes Christianity as the prevailing religion and punishes offenses which wantonly violate the religious feelings of the community. Blasphemy is said to consist in maliciously reviling God or religion. It is also defined as using language concerning the Deity calculated to impair reverence, with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and alienate others from the reverence of God.2 Statutes against blasphemy are constitutional. Formerly such laws were very rigidly enforced, and convictions were even upheld for selling Paine's "Age of Reason."4 But under the modern rule a mere denial in controversy or as a statement of belief of the truth of Christianity or even of the existence of the Deity, is not blasphemy, unless made in an indecent and scandalous manner, with a blasphemous intent.5 § 741. Profanity.-Profanity is the uttering of words importing an imprecation for divine vengeance or implying di 1 People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 335, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 812 and note. 2 Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206; Updegraff v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 394. 3 Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 812n. 4 Rex v. Williams, 26 How. St. Tr. 654. 5 People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 335, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 814 and note. vine condemnation, used so grossly and scandalously in public as to constitute a nuisance. Profanity is indictable only when a nuisance, therefore it must have been in the hearing of various persons and there must have been more than a single oath, although continuous swearing profanely for five minutes before others in a public place has been held indictable. Statutes in many jurisdictions punish public profanity.10 § 742. Working on Sunday.-In most states there are statutes prohibiting secular, worldly, or common labor or the following of one's usual avocation, on Sunday. Such statutes are constitutional. If no exceptions are made, such statutes are even enforcible against Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, and other persons who keep the seventh day as the Sabbath. 12 It is probable that a common-law prosecution for 6 State v. Chrisp, 85 N. Car. 528, 39 Am. Rep. 713; Gaines v. State, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 410, 40 Am. Rep. 64. 7 Carr v. Conyers, 84 Ga. 287, 10 S. E. 630, 20 Am. St. 357; State v. Pepper, 68 N. Car. 259, 12 Am. Rep. 637; Morrison v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. 20, 118 S. W. 541, Ann Cas. 1914 A, 811. 8 Goree v. State, 71 Ala. 7; Gaines v. State, 7 Lee (Tenn.) 410, 40 Am. Rep. 64. 9 State v. Chrisp, 85 N. Car. 528, 39 Am. Rep. 713. 10 Note to 22 L. R. A. 353 et seq.; note to Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 817. See also, Ogletree v. State, 18 Ga. App. 41, 88 S. E. 751; People v. Whitman, 157 N. Y. S. 1107; Chicago v. Noonan, 204 Ill. App. 195; Commonwealth v. Kane, 65 Pa. Super. Ct. 258. 11 District of Columbia v. Robinson, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 283, 12 Ann. Cas. 1094; Scoles v. State, 47 Ark. 476, 1 S. W. 769, 58 Am. Rep. 768; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803, 32 L. R. A. 664; Judefind v. State, 78 Md. 510, 28 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 721; People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. 707; State v. Barnes, 22 N. Dak. 18, 132 N. W. 215, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 930; Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. St. 312, 49 Am. Dec. 518; State v. Sopher, 25 Utah, 318, 71 Pac. 482, 60 L. R. A. 468, 95 Am. St. 845; Rosenbaum v. State, 131 Ark. 251, 199 S. W. 388; Krieger v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 566, 160 Pac. 36; Graham v. State, 134 Tenn. 285, 183 S. W. 983; State v. Davis, 171 N. Car. 809, 89 S. E. 40, Ann. Cas. 1918 E, 1168; People ex rel. Bender v. Joyce, 161 N. Y. S. 771, 174 App. Div. 574. 12 Commonwealth v. Starr, 144 Mass. 359, 11 N. E. 533; Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40; State v. Weiss, 97 Minn. 125, 105 N. W. misdemeanor would lie for breach of the Sabbath.13 However, the best authorities uphold these statutes, not upon religious grounds, but as a civil regulation of a sanitary nature under the police powers on the ground of necessity for periodical rest from toil for the general good.14 Such laws do not prevent the transaction of business by religious and philanthropic associations,15 but are held to prohibit all secular businesses which disturb rest.16 Also, in addition to the general Sunday laws, often there have been enacted special statutes which single out certain occupations or acts, such as theatrical exhibitions,17 or playing baseball,18 or amusements generally,19 or barbering,20 and enforce a greater penalty than the ordinary penalty under the general laws, for their transaction on Sunday and such statutes are not unconstitutional as class legislation if the classification is reasonable. § 743. Work excepted from operation of Sunday laws.— 1127, 7 Ann. Cas. 932; Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. St. 312, 49 Am. Dec. 518. 14 Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 41 L. ed. 166; Carr v. State, 175 Ind. 241, 93 N. E. 1071, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1190; Freund, Police Power, § 185; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 675; Krieger v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 566, 160 Pac. 36; Gray v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 269, 188 S. W. 354, L. R. A. 1917 B, 93n. 15 Feital v. Middlesex R. Co., 109 Mass. 398, 12 Am. Rep. 720; People v. Young Men's, Father Matthew Benev. Soc., 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 357. 16 Quarles v. State, 55 Ark. 10, 17 S. W. 269, 14 L. R. A. 192; Smith v. Wilcox, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 341; Cincinnati v. Rice. 15 Ohio St. 225; Ex parte Axsome, 63 Tex. Cr. 627, 141 S. W. 793, Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 794n; Koelble v. Woods, 159 N. Y.. S. 704, 96 Misc. 63; People v. Adler, 160 N. Y. S. 539, 174 App. Div. 301. 17 Lindenmuller V. People, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 548; Ex parte Lingenfelter, 64 Tex. Cr. 30, 142 S. W. 555, Ann. Cas. 1914 C, 765; note to 16 Ann. Cas. 407; note to 21 Ann. Cas. 682; Zucarro v. State (Tex. Cr.), 197 S. W. 982. 18 State v. Hogreiver, 152 Ind. 652, 53 N. E. 921, 45 L. R. A. 504. 19 In re Hull, 18 Idaho 475, 110 Pac. 256, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465n. 20 Stratman v. Commonwealth, 137 Ky. 500, 125 S. W. 1094, 136 Am. St. 299; Stanfeal v. State, 78 Ohio St. 24, 84 N. E. 419, 14 Ann. Cas. 138. See also, Adams v. Cook, 91 Vt. 281, 100 Atl. 42 (the return and receipt of a verdict on Sunday held a ministerial act, and one of "necessity and charity"). Most statutes exempt works of charity or necessity from the prohibition. In other cases it has been held such exceptions are implied.21 By various courts the following have been held work of necessity: Feeding stock,22 driving to wor: ship,23 mending a railroad switch,24 harvesting crops which would probably be lost,25 boiling down maple sap which would have spoiled,26 hauling ripe melons,27 carrying mail,28 or shoeing horses for a mail coach which under contract must leave early Monday,29 operating an ice factory when it would mean a day's additional loss to close,30 selling medicines,31 and undoubtedly, furnishing water or milk to customers. It is not a work of necessity to sell cigars, 32 or newspapers,33 or liquor, even to one requiring stimulus,34 or bread, meat, ice, or groceries,35 or for a barber to shave persons in his shop,36 or to pilot a canal boat,37 drive an omnibus,38 or 21 Whart. Crim. L (11th ed.) § 1700. 22 Edgerton v. State, 67 Ind. 588, 33 Am. Rep. 110. 23 Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 34 Pa. St. 398. 24 Yonaski v. State, 79 Ind. 393, 41 Am. Rep. 614. 25 State v. Goff, 20 Ark. 289; Turner v. State, 67 Ind. 595. 26 Morris v. State, 31 Ind. 189. 27 Wilkinson v. State, 59 Ind. 416, 26 Am. Rep. 184, 2 Am. Cr. 596. 28 Commonwealth V. Knox, 6 Mass. 76. 29 Nelson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 599, 8 S. W. 927. 30 Hennersdorf v. State, 25 Tex. App. 597, 8 S. W. 926, 8 Am. St. 448. 31 Commonwealth v. Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68, 21 N. E. 228; Elkin v. State, 63 Miss. 129. 32 Friedeborn v. Commonwealth, 113 Pa. St. 242, 6 Atl. 160, 57 Am. Rep. 464. 33 Commonwealth v. Matthews, 152 Pa. St. 166, 25 Atl. 548, 18 L. R. A. 761. 34 State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214. But see Hall v. State, 4 Har. (Del.) 132. V. Crowley, 35 Commonwealth 145 Mass. 430, 14 N. E. 459; State v. James, 81 S. Car. 197, 62 S. E. 214, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 617, 16 Ann. Cas. 277. 36 State v. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347, 55 Am. Rep. 555; Ungericht v. State, 119 Ind. 379, 21 N. E. 1082, 12 Am. St. 419; Commonwealth v. Waldman, 140 Pa. St. 89, 21 Atl. 248, 11 L. R. A. 563. But see Paizer v. Commonwealth, 4 Kulp. (Pa.) 286; Hunt v. State, 19 Ga. App. 448, 91 S. E. 879. 37 Scully v. Commonwealth, 35 Pa. St. 511. 38 Johnston v. Commonwealth, 22 Pa. St. 102. run horse cars to carry passengers,39 or carry pleasure seekers to a picnic,40 or gathering crops merely for convenience,11 or collecting clothes for a laundry.41a Generally travelling on Sunday on business other than charity or necessity is indictable.42 The general rule now is that it is not unlawful to operate railroad trains for passengers, or freight which would be injured by delay.43 The publishing of a newspaper has been held worldly employment.** Many of the statutes exempt the operation of trains and persons engaged in collecting and publishing news, also exempt from punishment those who observe another day as the Sabbath. And, whereas, specific prohibitions of Sunday labor have been upheld, so specific exceptions have been upheld; as for instance, baseball playing for hire 45 or the sale of confectionery or tobacco.4 46 § 744. Disturbing religious meeting.-The disturbance of an orderly conducted assembly of the people for a lawful purpose is indictable at common law.47 Under this rule disturbance of public worship is indictable at common law.48 39 Commonwealth v. Jeandell, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 506, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 509. 40 Dugan v. State, 125 Ind. 130, 25 N. E. 171, 9 L. R. A. 321. 41 Commonwealth v. White, 190 Mass. 578, 77 N. E. 636, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 320. 41a. State v. Lavoie (N. H.), 97 Atl. 566. See also, Wilson v. State (Ark.), 187 S. W. 937 (collecting logs for saw mill); Rosenbaum v. State, 131 Ark. 251, 199 S. W. 388 (operating a moving picture machine). 42 Connolly v. Boston, 117 Mass. 64, 19 Am. Rep. 396; Holcomb v. Danby, 51 Vt. 428. 43 Augusta & S. R. Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 126; Commonwealth v. Lou isville & N. R. Co., 80 Ky. 891, 44 44 Commonwealth v. Matthews, 152 Pa. St. 166, 25 Atl. 548, 18 L. R. A. 761. 45 Carr v. State, 175 Ind. 241, 93 N. E. 1071, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1190n. 46 State v. Justus, 91 Minn. 447, 98 N. W. 325, 64 L. R. A. 510, 103 Am. St. 521, 1 Ann. Cas. 91. 47 Campbell v. Commonwealth, 59 Pa. St. 266. 48 United States v. Brooks, Fed. Cas. No. 14655, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 427; State v. Jasper, 15 N. Car. 323. |