People v. Lynch

156 A.D. 601, 29 N.Y. Crim. 544, 141 N.Y.S. 728, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5859
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 16, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D. 601 (People v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Lynch, 156 A.D. 601, 29 N.Y. Crim. 544, 141 N.Y.S. 728, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinions

Scott, J.:

The statute under which the defendant was convicted provides as follows: All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting the works of necessity and charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health or comfort of the community.”

The particular work upon which the defendant was engaged was repaving a street in a populous quarter of the city of Hew York. He was doing the work under a contract with the city, but his contract did not require him to prosecute the work on Sunday, nor had he been directed so to do by any city official. There are doubtless many cases in which the prosecution of public works on Sunday is.needful for the .good order, health or comfort of the community, and, therefore, permissible under the statute, but this is not, in our opinion, such a case. .

[602]*602If it had appeared that any city official, charged with the conservation of the good order, health or comfort of the community, had directed- the defendant to proceed with the work on Sunday, we are disposed to think that he would have been absolved from the imputation of a criminal intent if he had complied with the direction.

No such justification appears in the present case, and the defendant in pursuing the work acted upon his own responsibility at the. peril of being able to show to the satisfaction of the court that the work was in fact, one of necessity. In this, he has failed.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

• McLaughlin,' Laughlin and Clarke, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., dissented,

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

Related

Hamlin v. Bender
92 Misc. 16 (New York Supreme Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 A.D. 601, 29 N.Y. Crim. 544, 141 N.Y.S. 728, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lynch-nyappdiv-1913.