Commonwealth v. Starr

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Starr

11 N.E. 533, 144 Mass. 359, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 182

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 5, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 11 N.E. 533 (Commonwealth v. Starr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Starr, 11 N.E. 533, 144 Mass. 359, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 182 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The evidence shows that the defendant, who is a Hebrew, kept open his shop on the Lord’s day, for the purpose of selling meat to Hebrews. The court correctly held that the facts that he was a Hebrew, who conscientiously believed that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and that he actually refrained from secular business on that day, were immaterial. This point was fully considered and decided in Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40.

The court also correctly held that it was not competent for the defendant to prove that he kept open his shop for the sole purpose of selling meat to Hebrews, and that this was a work of necessity or charity. The statute prohibits keeping open a shop for any purposes of business, and the exception of “ works of necessity and charity ” does not apply. This was decided in Commonwealth v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, which is conclusive of the case at bar. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Morton, C. J.

The evidence shows that the defendant, who is a Hebrew, kept open his shop on the Lord’s day, for the purpose of selling meat to Hebrews. The court correctly held that the facts that he was a Hebrew, who conscientiously believed that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and that he actually refrained from secular business on that day, were immaterial. This point was fully considered and decided in Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40.

The court also correctly held that it was not competent for the defendant to prove that he kept open his shop for the sole purpose of selling meat to Hebrews, and that this was a work of necessity or charity. The statute prohibits keeping open a shop for any purposes of business, and the exception of “ works of necessity and charity ” does not apply. This was decided in Commonwealth v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, which is conclusive of the case at bar. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.E. 533, 144 Mass. 359, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-starr-mass-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack