Law Report.
This was an action on the warrantv of a h.rse, tried before Mr. Justice Park at the last assizes for gerks. ']he warranty ard the unsouudness were clearly proved .bt it appeared that the contract was niade on a Sunday wvith the defendant. who-was a horse-deater residing at ilHaidenhead. It was objected that the plaintit:'could not recover, because the contract'was void, under the statute 29 Car. iL, being made on Sunday, with a person who was exercising his ordi. nary tradle. The learned Judge refused a nonsuit, and directed the: jury to find for the plaintiff, but gnye the defendant liberty to puove. x Mnr. JERVis' accordingly riow moved fora rule to show cause Nwhy a nonsuit should not be entered. He relied on the dis- tnetion taken by the Cout of Common Pleas in " Drury v. Deforitaine," 1 Taunton 131,where a similar bargain was holdea not void, because it was made by a horse auctioneer: for the sale:ot-,a horse by priva:e contract, which was not in the usual course of his tra.lc. Here the vender was proved to be a horse dealer,-and there- fore the statute applied to the case. IdIr. Justice BAYLEY said, he supposed the plaintiff was not in the usual course of his trade when he bought the horse. Mr. JERVIs replied, that the contract was made by the plaintif.s son who was an attorney. t iUhe LoRD CHltF JUT1sEr observed, tbat in the case cited, the purchaser raised the objection to the cQntract, as that was an action for the 'price of a horse. It was a different question whether the party whorn the jaw considered as culpable-could allege-his' own turpitude in his own excuse. ' i The CouET, however, afterconsulting,,gratedarule toshowcatuse. SIlR VW. CURTIS V. THE ISUARITAXLTS OF THE HUDWRED OF GODLEY. This was an action by Sir Wm. Curtis against the itihabitants of the huadred of Godley. in the county of Surrey, to recover-damages unider the Black Act, for the 'destruction by fire of woods in which the Baronet is interested as trustee. The case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the last assizes for Surrer, when it watutted, and assented to by the learned Judge, that. thi pl3ittiTcouln not recover unless it w.as made out to th,e satisfaction of the jury that the woods were wilfully and naliciously set on fire. The chieferi. dence to prove that this was the fact consisted of proof that similar fires to a less extent had occurred shortly previous, and that a firec I brand was found near the spot. The jury thought this evidence in-' sufficient, and rettueni aeverdict for te defendant. hlr. MAsaTaYA-T now moved for a rule to show cause why- the' verdict should not be set - awide and a new trial' had, contending, on a review of the circumstances proved at the trial, that there were sufficient greunns to justify a diflTerent charge and verdict. The COUUT granted a rule to show cause. LAW RBPORT. COURT OF KING'S BE '1'HL WESTMgI5TER MAy 6. UT3OxOROM V. WTT.T.r AATQ.