SALES BY UORSEDEALERS, AUCTIONEERS, ETC. 21 



The terms on which tho sale was afterwards to 

 take place were only specified on the Sunday, and 

 these terms were incorporated in the sale made ori 

 n subsequent day." This case was in the Com- 

 mon Pleas. 



However, in 182G, another horse case, Fonirl/ v. 

 2ii(ncr{r), Avas decided in the same Coui't and by 

 the same judges. The plaintiffs were horse dealers, 

 and the horse was bought by tlieni, and a war- 

 ranty given, on a Sunday. Tho horse not answer- 

 ing its warranty, the plaintiffs brought their 

 action, but were nonsuited. On moving the Couii, 

 tho plaintiffs were again unsuccessful, the judges 

 saying that they had not put a sufficiently broad 

 construction on the Sunday Observance Act, in 

 Bloxsomc V. Will i mm, and that they now had come 

 to tho opinion, that the act was intended to regu- 

 late private conduct as well as to enforce public 

 decency. 



In 1827, another case came before the Court of Cases 

 Common Pleas (,/" ) , which is useful to horse dealers, Sunday 

 because the judges doubted the decision of their J^p",/"^ 

 own Coiu't in Bloxsome v. Wil/ianis, referred to 'iieg'iJ- 

 above, and warmly eulogised the decision in Fennel/ 

 V. liidler. 



It should be noted that the 29 Car. 2, c. 7, does 



((') o B. & Cr. 40G. Sec also Williams v. Faid, G Bing. 653 ; 

 and Simpson v. Xicholh, 3 M. & "W. 240. 

 (/) Smith V. Sjjanou; 4 Bing. 84. 



