§ 284. Order of the Chapter. — We shall consider the procedure - I. In General, and the Common-law Offence. § 285. Indictment at Common Law. – In legal principle, this indictment, besides its formal parts, should aver that, at a time and place, the defendant did disturb, by means or in a manner so fully set out as to show the disturbance to be of the indictable sort and apprise him of what he is to answer to, a meeting, so designated or described as to appear, on the face of the allegation, to be one whereof the disturbance is punishable. To accept anything short of this would contravene familiar and fundamental rules of criminal pleading. The precedents and adjudications do not seem opposed to this view as to the meeting; but, as to the disturbance, Held good — (Setting out Disturbance). — It was adjudged adequate in Pennsylvania simply to say, that, at a time and place, the defendants “ did wilfully and maliciously disturb and interrupt a meeting of,” &c. followed by no specification of methods or acts.3 And "Disturb" " Interrupt" Obstruct." Pretty generally in the forms which seem to be deemed good, the only averment of the criminal act, or the only one apparently regarded as material, ! 1 1 For the law of this offence, see Crim. Law, IL § 301 et seq. * Crim. Law, I. 8 542; II. $ 308, 302 3 Campbell v. Commonwealth, 9 Smith, Pa. 266. is, that the defendant unlawfully, &c. “ did disturb and obstruct," or “ did disturb and interrupt,” or “did disturb and hinder,” the meeting or the officiating person; though a part of the forms proceed further. If the brief allegation is sufficient, it is, in principle, equally so merely to say that the defendant kept a disorderly house, or committed larceny: of goods named, or murdered Richard Jones. Consistently with this view it has been deemed that the disturbance may well be alleged by the general character of the disturbing acts, without descending further into the details.5 § 286. As to the Meeting. — It is believed that the approved forms all indicate the meeting in a way showing it to be one on which the offence can be committed : for example, “in the Ebenezer Baptist Church there, during the celebration of divine service; "B" in the parochial church there, at the time of the celebration of divine service;”? “the congregation of the African meeting-house in Washington county aforesaid, then and there in the said house assembled for and engaged in the worship of God;" 8 "a certain meeting of the school directors of St. Clair township, in said county, they the said school directors being then and there lawfully assembled for the purpose of discharging their duty as school directors for the said township of St. Clair."9 Simply to say “a religious assembly commonly called a quarterly-meeting conference” has been adjudged ill as being too indefinite ; the charge should be, that the assembly had met for “ divine worship,” “ divine service,” “religious worship or service,” or something of the like import.10 Where the words of a statute were “any meeting of inhabitants of this "8 12 Chit. Crim. Law, 21; People v. Kindred v. The State, 33 Texas, 67; Degey, 2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 136; The Cockreham o. The State, 7 Humph. 11; State v. Horn, 19 Ark. 578; Rex v. Hube, Bush v. The State, 5 Texas Ap. 64; The 5 T. R. 542; Rex v. Parry, Trem. P. C. State v. Ringer, 6 Blackf. 109; The State 239; Commonwealth v. Hoxey, 16 Mass. v. Stubblefield, 32 Misso. 563. 386; United States v. Brooks, 4 Cranch People v. Degey, 2 Wheeler Crim. C. C. 427; Kidder v. The State, 58 Ind. Cas. 135. 68; Bush v. The State, 5 Texas Ap. 64. 7 Rex v. Parry, Trem. P. C. 239. ? Ante, $ 275. 8 United States v. Brooks, 4 Cranch 3 Vol. I. § 331. C. C. 427. 4 And see Vol. I. & 508-510, 514-516. • Campbell v. Commonwealth, 9 Smith, This view is fully sustained by the rea- Pa. 266. soning, and almost by the very case 10 The State v. Fisher, 3 Ire. 111. passed upon, in Rex v. Cheere, 4 B. & C. And see The State v. Jones, 53 Misso. 902, 7 D. & R. 461. 486. 6 The State v. Hinson, 31 Ark. 638; State, met together for any lawful purpose,” an indictment thereon describing the meeting as a certain collection of divers inhabitants of the State of Indiana, met together as a singingschool," was adjudged inadequate.! § 286 a. The Place. — Neither averment nor proof of a particular parish or vill is necessary in this offence. § 287. Variance (Substance of Issue). - Where the manner of the disturbance is set out, it must be proved as laid, yet doubtless so only as to the substance of the allegation. But an averment that the defendant went into a religious assembly and there exhibited himself drunk, talked in a loud voice, and the like, is not sustained by proof of striking the building on the outside with a stick, thereby disturbing the worshippers within. “ The State," said Nash, C. J., "did not rest its charge against the defendant by averring, that, by loud and unusual noises, he had disquieted the congregation; in which case any such noises, however made, with a view to such disturbance, and attended with that effect, would have sustained the indictment; but it has particularized when the acts were done, and what they were.” 5 § 288. Other Disturbances not objected to. Whether the in dictment is on the common law or a statute, it will not avail the defendant, nor will he be permitted to show, that others had committed similar disturbances and no objection was made. II. Particularly of Statutory Disturbances. $ 289. English Forms of Indictment. Where, in England, the disturbance is to a congregation of worshipping dissenters, whose chapel to be lawful must be registered, averments may be necessary which are not so in this country. As to those which should be the same in both countries, Archbold's form sets out the special facts of the disturbance, in addition to covering the statu 1 The State o. Zimmerman, 53 Ind. State, 13 Ark. 688; The State v. Mc860. See Kidder 0. The State, 68 Ind. Clure, 13 Texas, 23. 68. 3 Stratton v. The State, 18 Ark. 688. ? Corley v. The State, 3 Texas Ap. 4 Ante, $ 281. 412; Bush 0. The State, 5 Texas Ap. 5 The State v. Sherrill, 1 Jones, N. C. 64; Warren v. The State, 8 Heisk. 508, 509. 269; Kindred v. The State, 33 Texas, 67. 6 Harrison v. The State, 37 Ala. 164. See ante, $ 41, 111, 135 ; Stratton v. The ? Crim. Law, I. § 542. tory terms, and there is probably no late English authority for omitting them. § 290. American. - There are some diversities of opinion in our courts, but, on the whole, the American form is substantially the same as the modern English, just stated. For example, where a statute made it punishable to “ interrupt a congregation assembled for the purpose of worshipping the Deity,” an indictment, held good upon it, charged that, at a time and place, the defendant “did unlawfully, contemptuously, and of purpose interrupt a congregation of Methodists, then and there assembled for the purpose of worshipping the Deity, by then and there talking and swearing with a loud voice.”? It is perceived that the character of the disturbance is stated, but not necessarily the precise words and specific acts.8 Beyond this, the indictment should sufficiently conform to the statutory terms; as, “Wilfully" — “Unlawfully." — If a disturbing of the meeting “ unlawfully” is prohibited, an indictment will be inadequate which charges it “ wilfully.” 4 “At or near.” — Where the statute made punishable disturbances of religious services by acts done “at or near the place of worship," the locality of the offender, as being "at or near” the place, was at first adjudged necessary to be averred. But on subsequent consideration the court overruled this decision ; because, said Deaderick, J. the “precise locality of the offender is not an essential element of the offence." This accords with the general doctrine, that the law holds an offence to be committed in the locality where the criminal act takes effect, and it is immaterial whether the personal presence of the doer is there or elsewhere.7 $ 291. Some Particular Questions on the Statutes : Disturbing School. — A Connecticut statute made punishable “ every person who shall at any time wilfully interrupt or disturb any district school, or any public, private, or select school, "4 " 6 | Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 68; The State v. Ringer, 6 Blackf. 109 ed. 667, 19th ed. 998. He refers to Rex Lockett v. The State, 40 Texas, 4. v. Cheere, 4 B. & C. 902, 7 D. & R. 461, 3 The State v. Ratliff, 5 Eng. 530 as to which see ante, $ 285, note. And see the last note to ante, § 285. 3 Cockreham v. The State, 7 Humph. 4 The State v. Townsell, 3 Heisk. 6. 11. And see, as not essentially differing See post, $ 296. from this, The State v. Stubblefield, 32 5 The State v. Doty, 5 Coldw. 33. Misso. 563; Kidder v. The State, 58 Ind. 6 Warren v. The State, 3 Heisk. 269, 271. 7 Vol. I. § 53. while the same is in session." And a complaint, charging a wilful disturbance of a school met and assembled for culture and improvement in sacred and church music, was adjudged insufficient; because it did not say the school was in session, and so did not cover the last clause of the statute.1 § 292. Evidence of Intent. Under a provision that, if any one shall sell, or offer to sell, bread or other articles mentioned, within a mile of any worshipping assembly, so as to interrupt such assembly, such person shall be dealt with as a rioter, his illegal intent may be inferred from his doing and persisting in the forbidden acts, to the creating and continuing of the disturbance. “ As men seldom do unlawful acts with innocent intentions,” observed the learned judge, “ the law presumes every act in itself unlawful to have been criminally intended." 2 § 293. Society or Members. Where the disturbance made punishable is of “any religious society or any members thereof,” 3 both clauses may be proceeded upon conjunctively in one count.* It was, therefore, held good to allege, that the defendant, “ being present at and when a certain religious society was convened and met together for the worship of Almighty God, did then and there interrupt, molest, and disturb said society and meeting, and the individual members thereof, by then and there in a loud, insulting, and boisterous manner talking,” &c. Also, Name of Society. — It was in the same case adjudged unnecessary to mention the name of the society disturbed ; it not being essential, observed Sullivan, J., " to the existence of a society convened for public worship that it should be known by any distinctive or sectarian name.” 6 $ 294. Means of Disturbance. We have already considered the general doctrine as to setting out the special facts or means of the disturbance. While there may be courts which even at the present day will hold no such setting out to be necessary, on the other hand there are statutes which so far specify the means as to render some averment of them plainly a necessity in covering the statutory terms." 1 The State v. Gager, 28 Conn. 232. 1 Ante, § 285, 289, 290. 8 Commonwealth v. Daniels, 2 Va. Cas. 402. See Crim. Law, II. $ 303. 9 The State v. Schieneman, 64 Misso. 386; The State v. Minyard, 7 Eng. 156, Fletcher v. The State, 7 Eng. 169. |