In the “Salem Register” of Oct. 11, 1820, we find the report of the trial of a man charged with the crime of Sabbath-breaking by delivering milk to his customers.  The presiding judge (Mitchell) seems to have made a very sensible address to the jury on this occasion.  Probably the surest way to bring about speedily the much-dreaded “European Sunday” would be for some person or persons to prosecute such individuals as they happen to know who violate certain obsolete Sunday laws.

Law Intelligence.

COMMONWEALTH VS.  GLOVER.

This was an appealed case.  The justice before whom it was
originally tried, imposed a fine on Glover, who appealed to the
Common Pleas.  It was tried at Dedham on the 21st ult.

The complaint was that said Glover had been guilty of the crime of Sabbath breaking, by delivering milk to his customers in Boston on the 25th June last.  The evidence to support the complaint was from two gentlemen, Messrs. M’Clure and Vose.  They testified, that on the 25th June last they walked out in company at 5, A.M. to see if they could discover any persons delivering milk from carts—­that they had not been long in pursuit, before they descried a man, who descended from his vehicle, with a milk vessel, and poured milk from it, which he delivered to a family in their presence.—­They approached him—­enquired his name, and from whence he came.  He answered, from Quincy, and his name was Glover.—­They asked if he was in the habit of bringing milk to Boston on the Sabbath.  He told them he had been when the weather was very hot.  This was the evidence.

     The complaint being for doing labour on the Sabbath in the county
     of Norfolk, which was not labour of necessity or mercy.

Churchill, for Defendant, in cross examining the witnesses, enquired why they rose at so early an hour, on the 25th June, and went to walk?  They answered that it was partly to exercise, and partly to perform their duty as professors of religion.  They said they had made up their minds that the moiety of the fines they expected to receive, they would give to some charitable institution.

The defence rested on two points—­First, That no crime or act was proved to have been committed in Norfolk county—­Secondly, If it should be proved that the act complained of had been committed, it was an act of necessity and mercy.

Counsellor Churchill entered with much spirit into the cause, and evinced that he had bestowed upon it much thought and labour.  He gave an elaborate history of the Sabbatical Institution, and stated the various opinions and laws as to the division of holy time.  He said that many families in Boston, both poor and rich, depended on milk to feed their children—­that a large proportion of the people had no conveniences for keeping it from Saturday night till Monday