Hamilton v. Austin

62 N.H. 575

Opinion

Dob, C. J.

The understanding in this state has been that the saving of a week-day for employer and employed in the operation of a mill does not make repairs a work of necessity within the meaning of the Sunday law, and is not evidence from which the fact of necessity can be found. Williams v. Hastings, 59 N. H. 373; McGrath v. Merwin, 112 Mass. 467. This understanding has been strengthened by the decisions on another clause of the statute. Thompson v. Williams, 58 N. H 248. There are many classes of cases in which the community need a means of knowing what business is lawful on Sunday. And this condition can easily be retained by further legislation specifically declaring -what cases shall be exempted from the prohibition when changes are deemed expedient. But a judicial reversal of the construction that has been adopted on this general subject would introduce all the evils resulting from the question of necessity being dealt with as a contestable question of fact in every case. Under these circumstances the established construction is followed without an investigation of its soundness.

Exceptions overruled.

Stanley, J., did not sit: Allen, Smith, & Clank, JJ., concurred,: Blodgett and Carpenter, JJ., were of opinion that the question whether the plaintiff’s labor was a work of necessity is a question of fact, and that no reason of convenience or expedience requires it to be treated as a question of law.