36 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Farmers not 

 within sta- 

 tute. 



Sale by a 

 Ilorscdcaler. 



By an orcli- 

 naiy person. 



Subseqiient 

 ratification of 

 a contract. 



stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction in tlie place 

 where such offence is committed. 



A farmer has been held not to be within section 1 of the 

 29 Car. 2, c. 7, on the ground that he is not " a tradesman, 

 artificer, workman, or ejusdon generis with any of these" (v/). 



A Ilorsedealer cannot maintain an action upon a con- 

 tract for the sale and warranty of a Horse made by him 

 upon a Sunday. The law on this subject was laid down 

 by the Court of King's Bench in Feiinell v. Rieller (z) on a 

 motion for a new trial, and Mr. Justice Bayley delivered 

 the following judgment : " This was an action upon the 

 warranty of a Horse. The plaintiffs were Ilorsedeakrs, 

 and the Horse was bought and the warranty given on a 

 Sunday ; and the only question was, whether, under the 

 29 Car. 2, c. 7, the purchase was illegal, and the plaintiffs 

 precluded from maintaining the action. That the pur- 

 chase of a Horse by a Ilorsedealer is an exercise of the 

 business of ]iis ordinary calling no one can doubt. The 

 act does not apply to all persons, but to such only as have 

 some ordinar// calling. In Druri/ v. De la Fontaine {a) 

 Lord Mansfield, C. J. (after the Court had taken time to 

 consider), laid it down, that if any man in the exercise of 

 his ordinary calling make a contract on a Su)ida//, that 

 contract would be void (and the case before him was a 

 private contract for the purchase of a Horse), but he 

 showed that that case was not within the statute, because 

 no one of the parties was in the exercise of the business of 

 his ordinary calling. His expression, that the contract 

 would be raid, probably meant only that it would be void 

 so as to prevent a party who was privy to what made it 

 illegal from suing upon it in a Court of law, but not so as 

 to defeat a claim upon it by an innocent party ; and so it 

 was considered by this Court in Bloxsome v. Williams'^ (b). 



"Where neither parties are Ilorsedcalers, a contract be- 

 tween them for the sale of a Horse is good, though made 

 on Sunday ; and this was recognized by Mr. Justice 

 Bayley in the last case, as having been distinctly laid 

 down by Lord Mansfield in Drury v. De la Fontaine, 



Where a bargain for some cattle was made, and the 

 price agreed on, on a Saturday evening, subject to the 

 defendant's approval of the beasts upon inspection next 

 33 L. J., M. 



(y) E. V. Silvester 

 C. 79. 



(z) Fennell and another v. liidkr, 

 5 B. & C, 406. 



{a) Drtiri/ v. De la Fontaine, 3 B. 

 & C. 232 ; but see per Parke, J., 

 Smith V. Sparroic, 4 Bing. 88. 



(i) Bloxsome v. Williams, 1 

 Taunt. 135 ; -S. C. 3 B. & C. 232. 



