52-4 DEFINITION OF TRADER. 



salesman {E.r parte Xnrall). x\ud so if he huijs horses unfit for farming, 

 and resells them, and avows his intention to take ont a licence, and 

 become a horse-dealer, these facts were held in Wriijht v. Bird to be 

 evidence of trading. A colonel of a regiment who sells horses occasion- 

 aUij at TattersalTs {Ex parte BlarJcmore), or a person who Jceeps hounds, 

 huijing dead horses and selling the skins and hones (Summerseit v. 

 Jarvis), are not liable as traders. But a farmer tnah'ng lime from a 

 lime-pit, opened and worked before the commencement of his term, 

 and selling the surplus beyond what he required for manure, is not 

 a trader witliin the bankrupt laws {Ex parte Ridge). And so where 

 the defendant in Patten v. Gould lought sixtg pigs in the course of the 

 gear, fed them on his stuMles, and resold some at the end of a week ; 

 and also bought 200 busliels of ray grass to sell, which he mixed with 

 seed he raised on the farm, and resold at a profit — it was held that 

 neither of these acts made him a "trader" within the scoi^e of the bank- 

 ruptcy laws. Borrovgh J. observed, that in a year like 181 G, when so 

 much wheat was beaten down with rain and tempest, it was most profit- 

 able to stock a farm with pigs. 



The authorities on the subject were much considered in Bell and 

 Anor., Assignees, v. Young. The case stated by the arbitrator for the 

 opinion of the Court of Common Pleas found that H. M. Hairland, a 

 farmer, who was under covenant with his landlord " to consume the 

 whole of the turnips and other roots upon the premises," kept cows as 

 part of his stock on the farm, in order tliat he migld sell milk thromjh 

 his man at the neighlouring toivn, to chance and regidar customers, hesides 

 malcing hitter for sale of the surplus ynilk, and that his keeping cows to 

 this extent was a good, proper, and husbandlike way of managing the 

 farm as he did, and that cows in fact were the most profitable stock he 

 could keep. The Court held that he was clearly not a cowkeeper within 

 the meaning of the Bankrupt Act, 12 & 13 Vict, c. 106, s. 65. Their 

 decision was governed by Ex parte Bering, where a farmer in the Isle of 

 Thanet occupying two farms (a considerable portion of which was sown 

 with canaryseed, the manure for which was all purchased), containing 

 together 200 acres, and bound to fodder his straw and green crops on 

 tliem, kept five cows, four of which were Alderneys, and seven horses, 

 and no other stock ; and it was held tliat his selling the milk of the 

 cows regularly to a retail dealer in Margate, who paid for it on an average 

 30.S. a-week, did not render him subject to the bankrupt laws as a cow- 

 keeper. Ex parte Hammond was similar in principle to the above. Here 

 a tenant of 130 acres under a farming lease, which obliged him tofcdlow 

 or plant with peas or potatoes (among other things) everg third gear, had 

 on his farm 12 acres of young potatoes, and 20 acres of green peas. 



