Sweet) house, when arrested.
The action was for false imprisonment, and it was contended by
the plaintiffs,--1st, That Mrs. Foster was travelling from
necessity and charity, and so within the exception of the
statute. 2d, That the defendant could not justify himself as
Constable unless he carried the person apprehended under the
Sabbath law before a Justice. 3d, That as Constable he had no
power to detain, and that he did not disclose his authority as
Constable to arrest. And 4th, that the Sabbath law and its
provisions are unconstitutional.
Judge Thompson charged the jury that the words "necessity and
charity" in our statute mean not physical necessity, but moral
fitness and propriety, and that it was incumbent on Mrs. Foster
to show that there was some necessity of this kind operating on
her when she left New York--she knowing that her regular route
would require travelling on Sunday; but that a Constable when he
arrests, must carry the prisoner, under the law, before a
Justice, and then he has done his duty; and as the defendant had
not done it in this case, he was liable.
Pages:
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97