same, to be taken or administered, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished as is provided in section 1st of this act.

Act 8 April, 1861, Sec. 6, P. L., 270.-Any person or persons who shall pretend, for lucre or gain, to enable any one to get or recover stolen property, or to tell where lost articles or animals are, or to stop bad luck, or to give good luck, or to put bad luck on any person or animal, or to stop or injure the business of any person, or to injure the health of any person, or to shorten the life of any person, or to give success in business, enterprise, speculation, lottery, lottery numbers or games of chance, or win the affections of any person whatever, for marriage or seduction, or to make one person marry another, or to induce any person to alter or make a will in favor or against any one, or to tell the place where treasure, property, money or valuables are hid, or to tell the place where to dig or to search for gold, metals, hidden treasure or any other article, or to make one person dispose of property, business or any valuable thing in favor of another, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable, under the provisions of this act, in any Court of Quarter Sessions, and the party or parties who may have consulted such persons as have pretended to do any of the acts aforesaid, shall be competent witnesses in all proceedings for a breach or breaches of this act.

XXII. PUBLICATION OF NOSTRUMS FOR SECRET DISEASES.

Act 16 March, 1870, Sec. 1, P. L., 40.-It shall not be lawful to print or publish advertisements of medicines, drugs, nostrums or apparatus for the cure of secret or venereal diseases, or for the cure of those diseases peculiarly appertaining to females; and if any person shall print or publish, or procure to be printed or published, in any newspaper in this State, any advertisement of medicines, drugs or nostrums or apparatus for the cure of secret or venereal diseases, or for the cure of those diseases peculiarly appertaining to females, or shall, by printing or writing, or in any other way, publish an account or description of such medicines, drugs, nostrums or apparatus, or shall procure the same to be published or written, or in any other way published, or shall circulate or distribute any such newspaper advertisement, writing or pub

lication, every such person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail, not exceeding six months, or both, at the discretion of the

court.

XXIII. PUBLICATION OF NOSTRUMS FOR PREVENTING CONCEPTION OR PROCURING ABORTION, OR SALE THEREOF.

Act 16 March, 1870, Sec. 2, P. L., 40.-If any person shall print or publish, or cause to be printed or published in any newspaper in this State, any advertisement of any secret drug or nostrum purporting to be for the use of females, or if any druggist or other person shall sell or keep for sale, or shall give away any such secret drug or nostrum purporting to be for the use of females, or if any person shall, by printing or writing, or in any other way publish an account or description of any drug, medicine, instrument or apparatus for the purpose of preventing conception or of procuring abortion or miscarriage, or shall, by writing or printing, or any circular, newspaper, pamphlet or book, or in any other way publish or circulate any obscene notice, or shall, within this. State, keep for sale or gratuitous distribution any secret drug, nostrum or medicine for the purpose of preventing conception, procuring abortion or miscarriage; such person or persons so violating any of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail, not exceeding six months, or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to affect teaching in regular chartered medical colleges, or the publication of standard medical books.

1. Commonwealth v. Leigh, 1881, 38 vol. Leg. Int., 1881, p. 184.—“Where an indictment has been returned 'ignored' by one grand jury, and a new indictment is sent to a subsequent grand jury by order of the court, and a 'true bill' found, the court will not quash the indictment.

2. "Neither the common nor the statute law in Pennsylvania prohibits the sale of instruments to prevent conception.

3. "Where in a count it is omitted to allege the offence to have been committed within the county, the omission is formal, and is curable by amendment.

4. "A count charging the publication of 'An account or description of an instrument or apparatus for preventing conception,' and which does not contain a copy of the publication, or its purport, or substance, is defective.

5. "Manner of pleading a proviso."

XXIV. HUNTING AND SHOOTING ON SUNDAY, How
PUNISHED.

Act 21 April, 1869, Sec. 7, P. L., 84.-There shall be no shooting, hunting, or trapping on the first day of the week, called Sunday; and any person offending against the provisions of this act, shall, on conviction, forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding twentyfive nor less than five dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail where the offence was committed, not less than ten days nor more than twenty-five days, for each offence.

ED. NOTE.—The act forbids hunting deer, quail, grouse, wild turkeys, woodcock and certain insectivorous birds out of certain prescribed season.

XXV. WORLDLY EMPLOYMENT ON SUNDAY

Act of 22 April, 1794, Sec. 1, Smith's Laws, Vol. III., p. 178.-"If any person shall do or perform any worldly employment or business whatsoever on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, works of necessity and charity only excepted, or shall use or practice any unlawful game, hunting, shooting, sport, or diversion whatsoever on the same day, and be convicted thereof, every such person so offending shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay four dollars, to be levied by distress; or in case he or she shall refuse or neglect to pay the said sum, or goods and chattels cannot be found whereof to levy the same by distress, he or she shall suffer six days' imprisonment in the house of correction of the proper county: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the dressing of victuals in private families, bakehouses, lodging houses, inns, and other houses of entertainment, for the use of sojourners, travellers, or strangers, or to hinder watermen from landing their passengers, or ferrymen from carrying over the water travellers, or persons removing with their families, on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, nor to delivery of milk, or necessaries of life, before nine

of the clock in the forenoon, nor after five of the clock in the afternoon, of the same day."

1. Commonwealth v. Eyre, 1815, 1 Sergt & Rawle, 350.-"If a man raise his hand against another, within striking distance, and at the same time say, 'If it were not for your gray hairs, etc.,' it is no assault, because the words explain the action, and take away the idea of an intention to strike."

2. A justice of the peace who has an imperfect view of persons at work on Sunday, cannot forcibly enter the premises of another for the purpose of getting a better view, in order to convict the offenders, under the acts of Assembly of the 22 April, 1794.

1. Commonwealth v. Wolf, 1817, 3 Sergt. & Rawle, 49.-"A conviction for doing worldly business on the Sabbath, under the Act of 22 April, 1794, is good if it follows the form prescribed in the law, though it does not state the time when or place where the work was done, or the nature of it."

2. "The proper mode of proceeding for this offence is by conviction, not by a qui tam action."

3. "Persons professing the Jewish religion, and others who keep the seventh day as their Sabbath, are liable to the penalty imposed by the law for this offence."

1. Omit v. Commonwealth, 1853, 8 Barr, 312.-In consideration of a case before them, the Supreme Court will not notice a technical irregularity not assigned for

error.

2. The sale of liquor by a licensed inn-keeper on Sunday to a guest, is in violation of the Act of 22 April, 1794.

1. Commonwealth v. Williams, 1853, 1 Pearson, 61.—It is the worldly employment or business of a barber to shave, and the court considers that he is prohibited from pursuing it on Sunday.

1. Johnston v. Commonwealth, 1853, 10 Harris, 106.-Special pleas when made before a magistrate become parts of the record.

2. The magistrate's finding in this case was, that "William Johnston, omnibus driver, [was guilty] of having done and performed worldly employment or business, not being a work of necessity or charity, on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday," "in driving certain horses, to which was attached an omnibus, in which certain persons were carried over the streets of the city of Pittsburgh," etc., "contrary to the act of Assembly, in such case made and provided." The case was taken to the Supreme Court on certiorari, where it was held, Omnibus driving as an occupation cannot be lawfully pursued on Sunday by a person hired by the month for that purpose.

1. Murray v. Commonwealth, 1855, 12 Harris 271.-" This [was] a summary conviction of a lock-keeper of the Schuylkill Navigation Company for attending to his business as such on the Lord's day, by opening the locks for the passage of boats." It was taken to the Supreme Court on a certiorari, where it was held, that "the Schuylkill river is a public highway, and as people are not forbidden by law, and therefore have a right, for some purposes, to pass along it even on the Lord's day, the Navigation Company must keep it open, and for this purpose must have lock-keepers to act for them. There may, indeed, be unlawful travel on Sunday, and for such travel there can be no right to have the locks opened;

but the criminality of the lock-keeper is not proved by the criminality of the travel, because as agent of the company he is bound to keep the navigation open for travel, and is not made the judge of its rightness." The judgment must therefore be reversed.

1. Commonwealth v. Jeandelle, 1859, 3 Phil. R., 509.-Breach of the peace by running street railway cars on Sunday considered.

ED. NOTE.-As to this case see S. C. Gr., 506.

1. Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859, 10 Casey, 403.-It is "essential that a summary conviction shall contain a finding that a special act has been performed by the defendant; and that it shall describe or define it, in such a way as to individuate it, and show that it falls within an unlawful class of acts. Without this, a judgment that the law has been violated, goes for nothing." This is a most essential and substantial rule.

Held, "if the de

2. Defendant was convicted of having "performed worldly employment, by driving on Sunday a carriage, in which were certain persons, not travellers, the same employment not being a work of necessity or charity." "Does this description contain all the elements of an offence against the law?" fendant had been driving his own family to church on the Lord's day, he would have been doing the very act that is here charged. If then this conviction stand affirmed by us, it will be equivalent to a decision by this court that a man cannot drive his family to church on the Lord's day without transgressing the law, because he will be driving on Sunday a carriage with persons in it who are not travellers." "This conviction must be reversed, for no sensible man supposes that the law forbids such an act."

3. What may be done on Sunday, which would appear to be worldly employment, considered fully.

1. Duncan v. Commonwealth, 1874, 2 Pearson, 213.—“A person was convicted and paid the penalty for selling cigars upon Sunday to A.; he was subsequently prosecuted before another alderman for selling to A., B., and C. The offence of selling to A. was shown to be the same for which he had been formerly convicted. The magistrate found him 'guilty of the premises charged in the infor mation.'"

Held, "That this record was fatally defective, even if the defendant himself had procured the first conviction in order to protect himself from other prosecutions.

"It seems that under the Act of April 22, 1794, a person may be convicted for every violation of the Sabbath committed by him, even though occurring on the same day, unless it is one continuous transaction. Under this statute one who buys articles on Sundays may be convicted as well as the person who sells them."

Commonwealth v. John Conway, 1874, 2 Legal Chronicle, R., 329.-" The coaling of locomotives, engaged in transporting live stock, on Sunday, being a work of necessity and charity, is excusable."

Waldo v. Commonwealth, 1879, 9th Weekly Notes, 200.-Constitutionality of the Act of April 22, 1794, touching the Sunday law.

Seaman v. Commonwealth, 1881, 38 vol. Legal Intel., 1881, p. 479.-"Where the evidence shows that the place of business was kept open on Sunday, and an employé was selling cigars, and that the owner was there part of the day, the pre