SUSPICION OF UNSOUNDNESS INSUFFICIENT. 5G3 



of tlie statute " exercising himself in the duties of piety aud true re- 

 ligion publicly and privalehj" and made the rule absolute for a new 

 trial. But where a farmer kept a stallion, and covered mares with it 

 on a Sunday, the contract was not held void under the statute, as it was 

 not done in the "exercise of his ordinary calling"; but even if it were, 

 the contract having been executed, he had a lien on the mare if the 

 covering fees were not paid {Scarfe v. Morgan). But quitre whether the 

 statute 29 Car. II. c. 7 avoids a previous parol contract for the sale of 

 goods, where the delivery and acceptance take place on a Sunday {Beau- 

 mont V. Brengeri). 



A farmer is not wathin the Sunday Trading Act, 29 Car. II. c. 7, s. 1, 

 Queen v. Silvester 33 L.J. (N.S.) M.C. 79. The appellant, a farmer, 

 was convicted and fined for haymaking on Sunday, but the Court of 

 Queen's Bench on appeal quashed the conviction. 



It is not sufficient, on a trial of ivarranty, for the plaintiff to give such 

 evidence as to induce suspicion that the horse is unsound ; if he only 

 throws the soundness into doubt he cannot recover, he must positively 

 prove the horse unsound at the time of sale. And hence in Eaves v. 

 Dixon, where the horse died a few days after the sale, and on dissection 

 veterinary surgeons gave it as their opinion that inflammation of the 

 lungs might lead to mortification in three days, and that if the inflam- 

 mation had existed at the time of the sale there would have been thick 

 breathing, and the plaintiff had a verdict on the warranty, the Court 

 directed a nonsuit. A ivarranty only refers to the state of a thing at the 

 time of sate ; but it may, as in Liddard v. Kain, become a continuing 

 warranty. There defendant remarked at the time of sale that one of 

 the pair of horses he purchased had a cough and nose-running, and said 

 in reply to the plaintiff"s assurance that he would be well in a week, 

 that he would not take him unless the plaintiff" would let him stand in 

 his stable for a fortnight. To this the latter assented, and said, " I 

 will deliver both the horses at the end of the fortnight, sound and free 

 from blemish." At the end of that time one still had a cough, and the 

 other a swollen leg, and was lame and blemished from a kick in the 

 stable. The jury found for the defendant in an action for the price, 

 and the Court refused to disturb the verdict. The plaintiff" had agreed 

 to deliver up both horses at the end of the fortnight, sound and free 

 from blemish ; and the warranty, therefore did not apply to a mere 

 unsoundness at the time of sale, but was a continuing warranty to the 

 end of the fortnight. And where, as in Simmonds v. Garr, an agent 

 for the sale of horses sold a horse of the defendant's and another of a 

 third person's to the plaintiff" at the same time, at an entire price of 

 90gs., and warranted both to be sound. Lord Ellenlorough C.J. held 



