Singing off-key in North Carolina: Is it illegal or just a silly story?

North Carolina:

Is singing off-key illegal or is it just a silly made-up story? Let's find out.

Photo byKeagan HenmanonUnsplash

NO SINGING OFF KEY:

North Carolina is known for some silly laws, but this one may keep you questioning can I sing my favorite tune in this town or not? Sound like a dying cat as you sing? Be careful, cause singing off-key in this area could land you in court. Watch out karaoke bar lovers, you just might be breaking the law.

The origin of this specific silly law dates back to the 19th century. Legend has it a man in Lumberton, North Carolina was fined for singing so loudly and profoundly, yet poorly, that it disturbed a whole congregation.

The case relates to a disturbance in noise than it does bad singing skills, but I found this record from the state of North Carolina to prove where this law came into play and what it means for you the horrible singer.

THE CASE: STATE V. LINKHAW

State V. Linkhaw, Term: June 1873.

" The disturbance of a religious congregation by singing, when the singer does not intend so to disturb it, but is conscientiously taking part in the religious services, may be a proper subject for the discipline of his church, but is not indictable. "

This is an indictment for misdemeanor, tried before the honorable Russell, J., Robeson Superior Court, North Carolina, Spring 1873.

The defendant was indicted for disturbing the religious congregation. Evidence shown detail by several witnesses: Defendant is a member of the Methodist Church; he sings in such a way as to disturb the congregation in a whole; at the end of each verse his voice is heard after all the other singers have ceased. One witness stated that the singers voice, "produced a burst of prolonged and irresistible laughter, convulsing alike the spectators, the Bar, the jury and the Court."

It's evident that the disturbance by the defandant singing is a serious matter. The effect was to make one side of the congregation laugh while it provoked and made the other side mad. The "irreligious and frivolous enjoyed it as fun, while the serious and devout were indignant." The evidence proved that the congregation had been so disturbed by it the preacher had declined to even sing the hymn, and shut the book without singing. The presiding elder had also refused to preach in the church on account of the disturbance. On one occasion a leading member of the church went to the defendant and asked him not to sing, which he did not do for the remaining service. The defendant was approached to plea all these claims, to which he simply stated, "He would worship his God, and that as a part of his worship it was his duty to sing." The Defendant is a strict member of the church, and a man of exemplary deportment.

"It was not contended by the State upon the evidence that he had any intention or purpose to disturb the congregation; but on the contrary, it was admitted that he was conscientiously taking part in the religious services. Defendant prayed the Court to instruct the jury that if the defendant did not intend to disturb the congregation he was not guilty."

The Honor refused and told the jury that it would not excuse the defendant to state the he did not intend to disturb the congregation. But the question stands, did he intend to commit the act which disturbed the congregation? The jury must see an actual disturbance and cause for the occasion by the defendants acts. As every man is presumed to have intended the necessary consequences of their own actions.

But long lass, there was a verdict of guilty! Though the defendant filed for an appeal immediatly after. W. McL. McKay, and N. A. McLean, for appellant. Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.

THE SETTLEMENT:

The defendant had been indicted for disturbing a congregation while he engaged in divine worship, and the disturbance is alleged to consist in his singing, which is described to be so peculiar to excite one side of the congregation but madden the other. The evidence reported by his Honor who presided at the trial, appears to the end of each verse his voice is heard after all the other singers have ceased, and that the distubance is decided and serious; that the church members and the authorities expostulated with the defendant about his singing, and the disrubance then grew out. To which he replied with he was "worshiping his God, and that as part of worship it was his duty to sing." The further evidence that the defendant is a strict member of the church and a man of the most exemplary deportment.

"It was not contended by the State upon the evidence that he had any intention or purpose to disturb the congregation; but on the contrary, it was admitted that he was conscientiously taking part in the religious services."

The admission by the State put an end to the prosecution, and its true, as it's said by his Honor, that a man in generally presumed to intend consequences of his own acts. Though here the presumption is rebutted by the fact of admittence by the State themselves. It seems that ones own actions led to them wanting a greater law, one that would put hault to this ignorance before it happens. As following the closing of the court the law of the Off-Key singer was put into play, to hopefully stop the nuisance the defendant created for this whole congregation.

We highly doubt you would be arrested today, but sure you may manage a noise ordinance violation instead.