562 DEALING ON SUNDAY. 



variance, tliongli it was proved that the defendant also promised that 

 the horse was sound {Miles v. Sheirard). 



It was ruled by the Court of Common Pleas with regret in Dmry v. 

 De la Fontaine, that where neither the vendor nor his agent in the sale 

 of a horse were working within their ordinary calling on a Sunday, the 

 sale must be held good. The plaintiff was a banker, who had sent his 

 horse for sale to the repository of one Hull, a horse- auctioneer, who 

 was not therefore acting within his ordinary calling when he sold the 

 horse to the defendant by private contract. In Bloxsome v. Williams, 

 the defendant was a coach-proprietor and dealer in horses ; and the 

 plaintiff's son verbally agreed one Sunday, as he was travelling on his 

 coach, to buy a horse from him for 39 gs., on a warranty that it was 

 sound and rising seven. No earnest was given ; and on the next Tues- 

 day the price was paid, apd the horse, which proved to be unsound and 

 seventeen, was delivered. There was no proof that the plaintiff or his 

 sou knew that the defendant was a horse-dealer ; and Park, J. overruled 

 the objection of the latter, that the contract being made on a Sunday 

 came within the 29 Car. II. c. 7, s. 2. The Court upheld the verdict 

 for the price of the horse, on the ground that this was not a sale on a 

 Sunday ; and that if it was so, it did not appear that the plaintiff was 

 privy to the fact of this being the defendant's ordinary employment ; 

 and that as the defendant was the only person acting illegally, it did 

 not lie in his month to make the objection on the statute, and thereby 

 take advantage of his own wrong. 



The bargain in Williams v. Paul, where the plaintiff, a drover, sold 

 three cows and a heifer to defray his expenses during a journey from 

 Sussex to Wales, was made on a Saturday night, subject to the defen- 

 dant's approval next morning. The four were approved of and left, but 

 were not paid for at the end of the three months, as agreed on ; and 

 Bayley J. considered that the defendant having kept the beasts, and 

 subsequently promised to pay, was liable for the value upon a quantum 

 meruit, though not for the price agreed upon by the bargain completed 

 on Sunday. On these grounds, although the Court considered that it 

 was a Sunday contract, because the bargain on Saturday was incomplete 

 till the beasts were inspected, they refused to enter a nonsuit. 



The objection under the statute in Fennell v. Ridlcr was of a novel 

 kind. The plaintiffs were horse-dealers, and objected that the statute 

 did not apply, as their contract with the defendant, an innkeeper, who 

 had given them a warranty, was made witJdn his own yard icith closed 

 gates, and in the presence of the parties and their servants only ; and 

 under the direction of Park J., they had a verdict. The Court, how- 

 ever, considered that the case was strictly within the scope of the words 



