Bridge,  14  Q.  B.  D.  460.
(.v)  Dwican  V.  mU,  L.  R.  8  Ex.  242.
(0  Hartas  v.  Ribbons,  22  Q.  B.  D.  254.
(?<)    Ubi  supra.
J  40         RULES  RELATING  TO  PARTICULAR  CONTRACTS.
shares,  and,  before  settling  day,  repudiated  the  con-
tract. The  broker  had  to  pay,  and  now  asked  to  be
recouped.  It  was  admitted  that  the  pm'chase  was
void,  as  not  being  in  accordance  with  Leeman's  Act  {it) ,
but  a  custom  of  disregarding  this  statute  was  shown
to  exist.  The  Court  held  on  a  finding  that  the  de-
feiidant  was  not  acquainted  witli  this  custom,  «mA
that  the  plaintiff  could  not  recover,  for  a  knowledge
of  an  unreasonable  and  illegal  custom  will  not  be
presumed.  In  Seymour  v.  Bridye  (f),  the  facts  were
similar,  but  knowledge  of  the  custom  was  proved,
and  the  decision  was  against  the  defendant.
