People v. Brown — 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 124

Majority

p. 124

The People vs. Robert R. Brown. The People vs. Raymer C. Wertendyke and James Pike.

Headnote

Tl. „ „ It is the duty of every ehureh6^to have himself with decorum and respect.» But a rule or a^church straining a man from 2:0-the sevice, is an ' infringementón and protect the under it3011”5

Assault and Battery.

The above cases were called up for trial by Maxwell, r J 3 District Attorney; cross indictments being found against, ab°ve defendants.

The facts of the case appeared as follows: Messrs. Wertendyke and Pike were officers of the church at the corner of Christy and Delaney streets. The authority of this had passed a regulation that no .person should go out of the church during divine service, without their ex-

Brown, who was, in some measure, a stranger in this .went to worship in this church on the evening of the 15th of September, 1822. . During the service, and at the commencement of the last prayer, Brown ar°se from his seat, in the gallery of the church, and walked with some force to the stairs leading to the door of the church. He was stopped on the stairs by Mr. Marrine and told he could not proceed: that it was against the

p. 125

rules of the church. He, however, persisted in going out. He was stopped at the bottom of the stairs by the defendants, and pushed with great violence against the wall. A considerable noise and tumult arose in, and about the door of the church. The officers of the church procured the authority of the watch, and Brown was taken into custody.

Wilson, counsel for Brown.

Upon these facts being proved, the court observed— “ We think the conduct of Brown is open to censure. It “ is the duty of every person attending church, no matter of “ what denomination, to pay that respect to the place and “ the people assembled there, as not to disturb or molest “ them in their worship. That, under the free constitution “ of this country, no man was compelled to go to any “ particular church, or indeed to any church at all, but “ that if he did go, (as it was the duty of evéry man to go “ to some church,) it was his duty to behave himself, while “ there, with decorum and respect. As to the rule or regut‘ lation passed, and attempted to be put into execution by “ the officers of this church, we think it clearly illegal; it “ is an infringement upon natural liberty and private right “ not to be tolerated ; nor can it, in law, excuse or protect “ the officers of the church from the responsibility of any “crime they may commit in enforcing such illegal rule.”

The jury, in accordance with the charge of the court, intimated the disapprobation of the conduct of each of the parties, by finding a verdict of not guilty in each of the indictments.