237 



till eight, when Hull refused to receive it: the 

 question for argument was, whether the sale was 

 void, being made on Sunday. Mansfield, C. J., 

 " The bargaining for, and selling horses on a Sunday 

 is certainly a very indecent thing, and what no 

 religious person would do: but we cannot discover 

 that the law has gone so far as to say, that every 

 contract made on a Sunday shall be void, althouc^h 

 under these penal statutes, if any man in the 

 exercise of his ordinary calling should make a 

 contract on the Sunday, that contract would be 

 void. The horse was not sent to Hull for the pur- 

 pose of private sale, but to be sold by auction ; 

 therefore Hull did not sell this horse, properly 

 speaking, as a horse-dealer. The sale of horses by 

 private contract was not Drury's ordinary calling^, 

 nor was it Hull's." 



In Fennel v. Ridler, 8 D. and R. 204, it was 

 decided that the statute 29 Char. II. cap. 7, for- 

 bidding the exercise of ordinary callings on Sunday, 

 apphes to private as w^ell as to public contract ; 

 and therefore, that a horsedealer cannot maintain 

 an action upon a private contract for the sale and 

 warranty of a horse, if made on a Sunday; it was 

 held however, in an earlier case, of Bloxsome f. 

 WiUiams, 5 D. and R. 82, that in an action on the 

 warranty of a horse, the defendant could not be 



