HORSEBBEAKER, TRAINER, ETC. 235 



in the following case S. sent a Mare to M., a farmer, to 

 be covered by a Stallion belonging to him, and the Mare 

 was taken to M.'s stables and covered accordingly upon a 

 Sunday. However, the charge for covering not being paid, 

 M. detained the Mare, and on a demand of her being 

 afterwards made, M. refused to deliver her, claiming a lien 

 not only for the charge on that occasiofi, but for a general 

 balance due to him on another account. It was held that 

 M. was entitled to a specific lien on the Mare for the 

 charge for covering her, and that the claim made by M. to 

 retain the 3Iare for the general balance was not a waiver 

 of his lien for the charge on the particular occasion, and 

 did not dispense ^\ith the necessity of a tender of that 

 sum(;?). 



It was also decided that such a contract was not void For work 

 within 29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 1, on the ground of its having ^one on a 

 been made and executed on a Sunday, but that even if it ^^ ^^' 

 were void the contract having been executed the lien 

 attached. And Mr. Baron Parke said, " We are of 

 opinion that this is not a case within the statute 29 Car. 2, 

 c. 7, which only had in its contemplation the case of 

 persons exercising trades, &c. on that day, and not one 

 like the present, where the defendant, in the ordinary 

 calling of a farmer, happens to be in possession of a Stallion 

 occasionally covering Mares; that does not appear to me 

 to be exercising any trade, or to be the case of a person 

 practising his ordinary calling " («). 



(«) Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 270. 



