Doyle v. Lynn & Boston Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Doyle v. Lynn & Boston Railroad

118 Mass. 195, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 335

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 3, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 118 Mass. 195 (Doyle v. Lynn & Boston Railroad) 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

Doyle v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 118 Mass. 195, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 335 (Mass. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The provision of the Lord’s Day Act, which prohibits travelling, like that which forbids the doing of any business, labor or work, excepts what is done from “ necessity or charity. Gen. Sts. c. 84, §§ 1, 2. The exception has been often said by this court to cover everything which is morally fit and proper to be done upon that day under the particular circumstances of the case. Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76, 77. Flagg v. Millbury, 4 Cush. 243, 244. Bennett v. Brooks, 9 Allen, 118, 123. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407, 409. In the last case, Mr. Justice Hoar said that acts to prevent or relieve suffering of men or animals would unquestionably fall within the exception.

In considering what is lawful or fit to be done on the Lord’s day, “ charity ” must include everything which proceeds from a sense of moral duty, or a feeling of kindness and humanity, and is intended wholly for the purpose of the relief or comfort of another, and not for one’s own benefit or pleasure. That a visit to a sick child or other near relative upon the Lord’s day is within the exception is well settled. Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324, 350, 351. Gorman v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 65. McClary v. Lowell, 44 Vt. 116. The same reason extends to the case of- a sick friend.

In the case at bar, there was evidence tending to show, and which would have warranted the jury in finding, that the plaintiff was travelling with his brother for the sole purpose of visiting a common friend, whom they knew to be sick, and thought might be in need of assistance, and of rendering such assistance as on inquiry they might find to be necessary. The absence of evidence of the grounds of their knowledge or belief is immaterial, except as a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining whether the real purpose of their journey was as the rest of the evidence tended to show. Myers v. State, 1 Conn. 502. The jury having been instructed otherwise, the

Verdict must be set aside.

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

Gray, C. J.

The provision of the Lord’s Day Act, which prohibits travelling, like that which forbids the doing of any business, labor or work, excepts what is done from “ necessity or charity. Gen. Sts. c. 84, §§ 1, 2. The exception has been often said by this court to cover everything which is morally fit and proper to be done upon that day under the particular circumstances of the case. Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76, 77. Flagg v. Millbury, 4 Cush. 243, 244. Bennett v. Brooks, 9 Allen, 118, 123. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407, 409. In the last case, Mr. Justice Hoar said that acts to prevent or relieve suffering of men or animals would unquestionably fall within the exception.

In considering what is lawful or fit to be done on the Lord’s day, “ charity ” must include everything which proceeds from a sense of moral duty, or a feeling of kindness and humanity, and is intended wholly for the purpose of the relief or comfort of another, and not for one’s own benefit or pleasure. That a visit to a sick child or other near relative upon the Lord’s day is within the exception is well settled. Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324, 350, 351. Gorman v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 65. McClary v. Lowell, 44 Vt. 116. The same reason extends to the case of- a sick friend.

In the case at bar, there was evidence tending to show, and which would have warranted the jury in finding, that the plaintiff was travelling with his brother for the sole purpose of visiting a common friend, whom they knew to be sick, and thought might be in need of assistance, and of rendering such assistance as on inquiry they might find to be necessary. The absence of evidence of the grounds of their knowledge or belief is immaterial, except as a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining whether the real purpose of their journey was as the rest of the evidence tended to show. Myers v. State, 1 Conn. 502. The jury having been instructed otherwise, the

Verdict must be set aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 Mass. 195, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-lynn-boston-railroad-mass-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack