Clough v. Shepherd
Superior Court of New Hampshire
In this action a plea in abatement was filed, as follows: •!C And the said defendant comes and defends, &c., when. &c., and prays judgment of the writ aforesaid, and that the same may be abated, because he says that although the said writ purports to have been made on the twenty-ninth day of July, A. D. 1854, yet in fact the same was made and delivered to the officer for service, not upon the twenty-ninth day of July aforesaid, but upon the thirtieth day of July aforesaid,…
Read the full summary
In this action a plea in abatement was filed, as follows: •!C And the said defendant comes and defends, &c., when. &c., and prays judgment of the writ aforesaid, and that the same may be abated, because he says that although the said writ purports to have been made on the twenty-ninth day of July, A. D. 1854, yet in fact the same was made and delivered to the officer for service, not upon the twenty-ninth day of July aforesaid, but upon the thirtieth day of July aforesaid, which was the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord’s day. And this he is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
Under the provisions of the Revised Statutes this plea cannot be supported. Those provisions originally drawn with slight ehauge from the statutes previously in force, were very materially changed during their passage through the legislature.
The act of December 24, 1799, (Laws Ed. 1830, p 167,) provided that “ no tradesman, artificer, or any other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any labor, business or work of their secular calling, works of necessity and mercy only excepted, on the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord’s day.” While the Revised Statutes enact that “ no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Frost v. HullSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Shaw v. DodgeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831