Indictment for misdemeanor, tried before Russell, J., at Robeson Superior Court, Spring Term, 1873. Defendant was indicted for disturbing a religious congregation. The evidence as detailed by several witnesses was substantially this: Defendant is a member of the Methodist Church; he sings in such a way as to disturb the congregation; at the end of each verse, his voice is heard after all the uther singers have ceased.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1873-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1990
2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
The defendant is indicted for disturbing a congregation while engaged in divine worship, and the disturbance is alleged to consist in his singing, which is described to be so peculiar as to excite mirth in one portion of the congregation and indignation in the other.
¶2
Prom the evidence reported by his Honor who presided at the trial, it appears that at the end of each verse his voice is heard after all the other singers have ceased, and that the disturbance is decided and serious; that the church members and authorities expostulated with the defendant about his singing and the disturbance growing out of it; to all of which he replied that he would worship his God, and that as a part of his worship it was his duty to sing. It was further in evidence that the defendant is a strict member of the church, and a man of most exemplary deportment.
“
It was not contended by the State upon the evidence that he had any intention or purpose to disturb the congre
*217
gation; but on tbe contrary, it was admitted that lie was conscientiously taking part in tbe religious services.”
¶3
This admission by tbe State puts an end to tbe prosecution. It is true, as said by bis Honor, that a man is generally presumed to, intend consequences of bis acts, but here tbe presumtion is rebutted by a fact admitted by tbe State.
¶4
It would seem that the defendant is a proper subject for the discipline of bis church, but not for tbe discipline of the Courts.
