
    Cockreham vs. The State.
    1. A disturbance of a single member of a congregation engaged in religious worship, is an indictable offence within the statute of 1801, ch, 35.
    3. The act of 1801, provides that “if any person shall interrupt a congregation assembled for the purpose of worshipping the deity, such person shall be dealt with as a rioter at common law.”
    Under this statute Cockreham was indicted in the Circuit Court of Hawkins county. The indictment charged, that Cockreham “did unlawfully, contemptuously and of purpose, interrupt a congregation of Methodists, then and there assembled for the purpose of worshipping the deity, by then there talking and swearing with a loud voice, contrary to the statute,” &c.
    The case was submitted to a jury on the plea of not guilty. The evidence is not set out in the bill of exceptions. The presiding Judge, Lucky, charged the jury, that to constitute the offence punishable by the statute of 1801, it was not necessary that the whole congregation, or any given part of it, engaged in religious exercises, should be interrupted; it was sufficient if one member of the congregation should be interrupted whilst so engaged. He further charged, that whether the act proven was of a nature calculated to interrupt an individual whilst engaged in religious worship, was a question for the determination of the jury. The defendant was found guilty and fined twenty-five dollars. He appealed.
    
      It. J. McKinney, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The error assigned by the appellant, the plaintiff in error, who was indicted, tried and convicted for disturbing public religious worship, is, that the Circuit Court held in its charge to the jury, that profane language addressed to one single individual of a congregation engaged in public worship would maintain the indictment, and that it was not necessary that the whole congregation or any given portion of it should be interrupted or disturbed. We are of opinion that there is no error in this. Every individual worshiper in the congregation, as well as the entire congregation is protected by the object and policy of our statutes, from rude and profane disturbance during the solemn moments of public worship. And he who thus disturbs one worshiper, cannot, in reason or in law, allejjge that he has not disturbed a congregation while engaged in public worship. The protection intended by the law, would amount to little, if the congregation might in detail, though each of the individuals composing it, be disturbed with impunity.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  