22 HORSE AVARRANTV. 



not make every work or business done on the 

 Lord's day illegal, but only carrying on a person's 

 trade and ordinary calling on that day. So in 

 Sao'fc V. Jloi'f/aii (fj), the defendant pleaded ille- 

 gality under the statute, against a farmer for tho 

 service of a stallion in covering the defendant's 

 mare on a Sunday, but the defence was overruled. 

 So also a contract made by a fai-mer on a Sunday, 

 for hire of a labourer to attend on a horse, is not 

 illegal (//). 



llorsedealers, then, and farmers who are in tho 

 habit of selling horses, should bo cautious how 

 they deal in them on Sundays. If they bought, 

 or sold, or entered into some contract about a hoi-so 

 on a Sunday with some one not in tho trade, it 

 may happen, that tho latter may repudiate tho 

 contract, and jjuI tho person in the trade to groat 

 trouble and needless expense. At tho same time, 

 it must bo remembered, that a person not in tho 

 liorso trade cannot sue a horse dealer on a contract 

 made on Sunday respecting horses, if such person 

 knew that tho horse dealer carried on that trade. 

 The above quoted case, tSmiih v. Sjxirroir (/), is also 

 useful in showing that if a contract is made by an 

 agent, and the objection is taken by tho party at 



{^) -I M. & W. 270. 



(/i) Jl. V. Whitnath, 7 B. & C. 09C; Ikgbu v. Ixti, 1 C. i J. 

 180; 1 TjTwhitt, 13i». Sue Jicaiunoiit \.Bmigin, o C. B. 301. 

 (0 i Bingbatn, 81. 



