Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Law Case.
LAW CASE .
PETER CREPS versus JONATHAN DURDEN . Sabbath Breaking . BY the statute of 29 . Car . 2 . ch . 7 . Peter Creps a baker , was convicted by Jonathan Durden , a justice of peace , for rolling ; small hot rolls of-bread on the 16 th of November 177 6 , ' bein- the
a Lord ' s day . —It having been proved , that he hall sold these rods four several times on the same day , the justice deemed them separate and distinct offences , and accordingly made four distinct convictions , and levied by four distinct warrants the sum of sos . The baker , on the ground of their not being separate and distinct offencesbrought an action against the justice , to recover the sum
, of 15 s—the amount of three convictions . Puller , on behalf of the baker , contended that the offence created by the statute is " exercising his calling on the Lord ' s day ; " and that therefore if the baker had continued baking from morning ' till night , it would be but one offence ; that here were four convictions for one and the same offence ; consequently as to three ,
there is an excess of jurisdiction , and the action against the Justice maintainable . Cozeper , on the contrary for the Justice , contended that as there was evidence of four different acts , which for aught that appeared mig ht have been carried onat . 'four different places , the Court will
not presume to the contrary against the Justice , who has acted on them as four distinct offences . Lord Mansfield . If there are four convictions , for one and the same offence / committed on one and the same day , three of them must necessarily be bad . On the construction of the act of pariiment , the offence is " exercising his ordinary trade on the Lord ' s " and thatwithout fraction of a dayhoursor minutes .
day , , any , , It ' is but one entire offence , whether longer or shorter in point of duration ; so whether it consist of one , or a number . of particular acts the penalty incurred by the offence , is five shillings . There is no idea conveyed by the act itself , that if a taylor sews on the Lord ' s day , every stitch he takes is a separate offence ; or if a shoemaker or carpenterwork for different customers at different times
, on the same Sunday , that those are so many separate and distinct offences . There can be but one entire offence , on one and the same day . Killing a single bare by an unqualified person , is an offence ; " but the killing ten more on the same day will not multiply the offence , or the penalty imposed by the statute for one . Here repeated offences are not the object which the legislators had in
view in making the statute : but singly to punish a _ man for exercising his ordinary trade and calling on a Sunday . _ Upon this construction the Justice had no jurisdiction whatever in respect of the three last convictions : judgment was therefore given for the baker .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Law Case.
LAW CASE .
PETER CREPS versus JONATHAN DURDEN . Sabbath Breaking . BY the statute of 29 . Car . 2 . ch . 7 . Peter Creps a baker , was convicted by Jonathan Durden , a justice of peace , for rolling ; small hot rolls of-bread on the 16 th of November 177 6 , ' bein- the
a Lord ' s day . —It having been proved , that he hall sold these rods four several times on the same day , the justice deemed them separate and distinct offences , and accordingly made four distinct convictions , and levied by four distinct warrants the sum of sos . The baker , on the ground of their not being separate and distinct offencesbrought an action against the justice , to recover the sum
, of 15 s—the amount of three convictions . Puller , on behalf of the baker , contended that the offence created by the statute is " exercising his calling on the Lord ' s day ; " and that therefore if the baker had continued baking from morning ' till night , it would be but one offence ; that here were four convictions for one and the same offence ; consequently as to three ,
there is an excess of jurisdiction , and the action against the Justice maintainable . Cozeper , on the contrary for the Justice , contended that as there was evidence of four different acts , which for aught that appeared mig ht have been carried onat . 'four different places , the Court will
not presume to the contrary against the Justice , who has acted on them as four distinct offences . Lord Mansfield . If there are four convictions , for one and the same offence / committed on one and the same day , three of them must necessarily be bad . On the construction of the act of pariiment , the offence is " exercising his ordinary trade on the Lord ' s " and thatwithout fraction of a dayhoursor minutes .
day , , any , , It ' is but one entire offence , whether longer or shorter in point of duration ; so whether it consist of one , or a number . of particular acts the penalty incurred by the offence , is five shillings . There is no idea conveyed by the act itself , that if a taylor sews on the Lord ' s day , every stitch he takes is a separate offence ; or if a shoemaker or carpenterwork for different customers at different times
, on the same Sunday , that those are so many separate and distinct offences . There can be but one entire offence , on one and the same day . Killing a single bare by an unqualified person , is an offence ; " but the killing ten more on the same day will not multiply the offence , or the penalty imposed by the statute for one . Here repeated offences are not the object which the legislators had in
view in making the statute : but singly to punish a _ man for exercising his ordinary trade and calling on a Sunday . _ Upon this construction the Justice had no jurisdiction whatever in respect of the three last convictions : judgment was therefore given for the baker .