oceed on his route. _Any other liberties on the Lord's
day our opinion does not warrant_."

The report naively says, that after this opinion the Attorney General
entered a _nolle proscqui_.

In Pearce vs. Atwood, 13 Mass., 324, a case which arose in 1816 and
which attracted a great deal of notice at the time, Chief Justice Parker
says: "It is not necessary to resort to the laws promulgated by Moses,
in order to prove that the _Christian Sabbath_ ought to be observed by
_Christians_, as a day of holy rest and religious worship; and if it
were it would be difficult to make out the point contended for from that
source;" and then goes into a long disquisition upon the Mosaic law and
the precepts of the Saviour and finally says that "cases often arise in
which it will be both innocent and laudable for the most exemplary
citizen to travel on Sunday. Suppose him suddenly called to visit a
child, or other near relative, in a distant town laboring under a
dangerous illness; or suppose him to be a physician; or suppose a man's
whole fortune and the future comfort of his family to depend upon his
being at a remote place early on Monday morning, he not having known the
necessity until Saturday evening; these are all cases which would
generally be considered as justifying the act of travelling." Certainly
a somewhat broader view than that taken by the Court seven years
earlier.

The law remained thus and was re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of
1836, the penalty being raised, however, to ten dollars. In civil cases
arising out of damages sustained by travellers upon the Lord's day,
corporations defendant were quick to take advantage of the law and to
rely upon the illegality of the plaintiff's act of travelling, as a good
defence to his action.

In 1843 arose the case of Bosworth vs. Inhabitants of Swansey, 10
Metcalf, 363. Bosworth was travelling on the eleventh of June of that
year, being Sunday, from Warren, Rhode Island, to Fall River on business
connected with a suit in the United States Court, and was injured by
reason of a defect in a highway in Swansey.

The defendant town admitted that it was by law required to keep the
highway in repair. And plaintiffs counsel argued that as the statute
provided a penalty of ten dollars for travelling on Sunday it could not
be further maintained that there was the additional penalty that a man
could have no legal redress for damages suffered by reason of the
neglect or refusal of de