fendants to do that which the law required them
to do. But the court ruled, Chief Justice Shaw delivering the opinion,
"that the plaintiff was plainly violating the law and that since he
could recover from the town only, if free from all just imputation of
negligence or fault," in this case he could recover nothing. In deciding
this case, however, the Court was not called upon to construe the terms
"necessity or charity," as affecting the liability of corporations
plainly shown to be negligent in the performance of their duties to
others; but many such cases soon arose.

In Commonwealth vs. Sampson, Judge Hoar said, "the definition which has
been given of the phrase necessity or charity ... that it comprehends
all acts which it is morally fit and proper should be done on the
Sabbath may itself require some explanation. To save life, or prevent
or relieve suffering; to prepare useful food for man and beast, to save
property, as in case of fire, flood, or tempest ... unquestionably fall
within the exception ... But if fish in the bay, or birds on the shore,
happened to be uncommonly abundant on the Lord's day, it is equally
clear that it would furnish no excuse for fishing or shooting on that
day. How it would be if a whale happened to be stranded on the shore we
need not determine." It is needless to remark that this was a decision
affecting the interests of a town upon the coast.

In Feital vs. Middlesex R.R. Co., 109 Mass., 398, plaintiff was injured
while returning from a Spiritualist meeting in Malden, and counsel for
defendant maintained that the meeting was attended for idolatry and
jugglery, and while it might be the right of the plaintiff to be an
idolater and to attend shows, yet she could not do so in violation of
the Statute, which was intended to protect the conscience of the
majority of the people from being offended upon the Lord's day. But the
Court ruled that it could not be said as matter of law that travelling
for such a purpose was not within the exception, and that it must be
left to the jury to say if the plaintiff was in attendance in good faith
for devotional exercise as matter of conscience.

In How vs. Meakin, 115 Mass., 326, the court held that it was not a
violation of the law to hire a horse and drive to a neighboring town to
attend the funeral of plaintiff's brother.

But it was held in a later case that plaintiff, who had been to a
funeral on the Lord's day and was returning therefrom by