a long and verbose one-but, in substance, it enacts, It has been decided on the construction of this Act of Parliament, that it was not intended to apply to any does not except British securities, and, consequently, that it does not prohibit gambling in the foreign funds. They lo question was long contested, but has been finally de- 7 cided by Wells v. Porter, 2 Bing. N. C. 722, 29 E. C! L. R.; Oakley v. Rigby, 3 Scott, 194, 36 E. C. L. R. / 2 Bing. N. C. 732; Robson v. Fallows, 3 Bing. N. C. 392, 32 E. C. L. R. (a) Another class of contracts are those falling within the operation of the statute commonly known by the name of the Lord's Day Act. It is 29 Car. 2, c. 7, and it enacts that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatever, shall exercise any worldly labour or business, or work of their ordinary callings, upon the Lord's day (works of necessity or charity only excepted), and that every person of the age of fourteen years offending in the premises shall forfeit five shillings. The con (a) All wagers are void of this and every other description by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, s. 18. See ante, p. 165, n. 'At common law, judicial proceedings alone seem to have been forbidden on Sunday; Macalley's case, 9 Coke, 66 b; Comyn v. Boyer, Cro. Eliz. 485; Strong v. Elliott, 8 Cowen, 28; Sayles v. Smith, 12 Wendell, 59; Boynton v. Page, 13 Id. 429; Kepner v. Keefer, 6 Watts, 233; all other transactions therefore done on that day depend as to their illegality upon statutory prohibition. The history of the regulations gradually adopted on this subject was thus sketched by Gilchrist, J., in the recent case of Allen v. Denning, 14 New Hampshire, 136. "It appears," said he, "that the ancient 516 tracts prohibited by this statute are, you will observe, not every contract made on Sunday, but contracts Christians used all days alike for the hearing of causes, not sparing (as it seemeth) the Sunday itself. One reason for this was, that they might not imitate the heathens, who were superstitious about the observance of days; and also, that by keeping their own courts always open, they might prevent Christian suitors from resorting to heathen courts. Spelman's Original of the Terms, c. 17; Swan v. Broome, 3 Burrow, 1598. But the practice ceased with the reason for it, and in the year 516, a canon was made, "Quod nullus episcopus vel infra positus die dominico causas judicare præsumat." This canon, with others of a similar character, was confirmed by William the Conqueror and Henry the Second, and so became part of the common law of England. But the canons extended no farther than to prohibit judicial business on Sundays; for fairs, markets, sports, and pastimes might still take place on the Sabbath. Comyns v. Boyer, Cro. Eliz. 485, decides that a fair held on Sunday is well enough, although by the 27 Hen. 6, ch. 5, a penalty was inflicted on him who sold on that day. The toleration of amusements, and the existence of fairs in England to a greater or less degree upon the Sabbath, are readily accounted for by their known accordance with the practice of Roman Catholic countries, among which was England until the Reformation in the reign of Henry the Eighth. With the spread of the reformed religion, and the consequent improvement in civilization, the views and manners of the people changed on the subject of the rational observance of the Sabbath, and in all Protestant communities laws were enacted to secure it, varying in their provisions with the peculiarities of the people. Pastimes of various kinds were prohibited by the 1 Car. 1, c. 1, and by the 29 Car. 2, ch. 7. All persons were prohibited from "doing or exercising any worldly labour, business, or work of their ordinary calling upon the Lord's day." In the opinion of Lord Mansfield in Swan v. Broome, 3 Burrow, 1598, referred to in the above extract, the student will find much of the old learning on this subject. It is believed that provisions, more or less similar to those of the statute of Charles, exist in all the United States. In New York, the statute refers only to "servile labour," and "exposing goods for sale." In South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, it has been nearly exactly copied. In many of the other States, such as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut, the made in the exercise of a man's trade or ordinary calling; thus it has been decided in *R. v. Whitnash, 7 B. & C. 59, 14 E. C. L. R., that a [172] provisions are more strict, interdicting all secular labour, whether in one's ordinary calling or not. Thus, no action can be maintained for a deceit in the exchange of horses on Sunday, Robeson v. French, 12 Metcalf, 24, or a breach of warranty, Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vermont, 214; Adams v. Harnell, 2 Douglass, 73; nor for an injury received while travelling on that day, by reason of a defective highway (the journey not being one of necessity or mercy), Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Metcalf, 365 (though it would be a work of necessity to repair the road on Sunday, Flagg v. Wilby, 4 Cush. 244); or on a note given on that day, Kepner v. Keefer, 7 Watts, 232, and the like. There was a rather early decision in Massachusetts (Greer v. Putnam, 10 Mass. 312), to the effect that a plea that a note was void because executed on Sunday, was bad on demurrer, but the case proceeded on the ground that the plea did not state on what part of Sunday the note was made, the act only extending between midnight on Saturday and the sunset of the next day, and though the authority of the case was more broadly applied in Clapp v. Smith, 16 Pick. 247, yet the recent cases have explained the decision on the ground just stated; Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Metcalf, 364, arg.; Robeson v. French, 12 Id. 24. In Specht v. The Commonwealth, 8 Barr, 313, it was held, affirming the previous decision of Commonwealth v. Wolf, 3 Ser. & Rawle, that the Pennsylvania Lord's Day Act was not at variance with the provision in the State constitution, declaring the right of freedom of conscience in religious matters, and a conviction, under the act, of one of the sect called Seventh Day Baptists was therefore sustained, the decision being based upon the ground of a day of rest being necessary to the welfare of society, and that the mere prohibition of secular occupation did not interfere with the right of conscience. The case of Cincinnati v. Rice, 13 Ohio, 225, was decided upon a clause in the local statute, exempting persons who conscientiously kept holy the seventh day, and a somewhat similar provision is found in the Massachusetts statute. But although a bond may be void because executed on Sunday, so that, as a bond or contract, no suit can be maintained upon it, yet in a suit founded on the previous liability of the defendant, the bond may be regarded as an acknowledgment of that liability, as there is nothing to prevent a man from acknowledging the truth on Sunday, contract made on Sunday by a farmer for the hire of a labourer is valid. The Court decided, in the first place, that a farmer was not a person within the meaning of the statute at all, for that the meaning of the words "tradesmen, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever, was to prohibit the classes of persons named and other persons ejusdem generis, of a like denomination; and they did not consider a farmer to be so.' And, secondly, they held that even 2 if the farmer were comprehended within the class of persons prohibited, the hiring of the servant could not be considered as work done in his ordinary calling, for, said Mr. J. Bayley, "those things which are repeated daily or weekly in the course of trade or business, are part of the ordinary calling of a man exercising such trade or business; but the hiring of a servant for a year does not come within the meaning of those words." The former of the two points decided in this case furnishes a very good exemplification of the celebrated rule of construction as applied to statutes, namely, that where an act mentions particular classes of persons, and then uses general words, such as "all others," the general words are restrained to persons of the like description with those specified: the same construction was put upon the Lord's Day Act in a subsequent case, that of Peate v. Dicken, 1 C. M. & R. 422, 5 Tyrw. 116, where it was decided first, that an attorney / [*173] was not within the description of persons in and consequently nothing to prevent its being given in evidence against him; Lea v. Hopkins, 7 Barr, 492, and in any case in which such a defence is set up, it is necessary that the statute be specially pleaded, Fox v. Mench, 3 Watts & Serg. 496, unless, of course, where local statutory or other rules of pleading have varied this general principle. So the act does not apply to the enlistment of a soldier on Sunday; Wotton v. Gavin, 2 Eng. Law & Eq. R. 154. tended by the statute; and secondly, that, if he were, an agreement made on Sunday to become personally responsible for the debt of a client, could not be said. to fall within his ordinary calling. The cases in which the act is most frequently sought to be applied are those of sales, of which you may see instances in Fennell v. Rider, 5 B. & C. 406, 11 E. C. L. R.; Simpson v. Nicholls, 3 M. & W. 240. Yet, from the application of the act to those cases even, there are some exceptions; some created by the act itself, which permits food to be sold in inns and cookshops to persons who cannot be otherwise provided, and for the sale of milk at certain hours; others, by 10 & 11 W. 3, c. 24, which legalizes the sale of mackerel before and after divine service; others by 5 & 6 /83 5W. 4, c. 37, which allows bakers to carry on their business to a certain extent and under certain restrictions, and, indeed, even before the passing of that act, or of the 34 G. 3, c. 61, on the same subject, it has been de- 17, cided that a baker baking provisions for his customers was out of the purview of the act altogether as being a work of necessity (see R. v. Cox, 3 Burr. 787; R. v. Younger, 5 T. R. 449): and there are other exceptions created by other particular enactments, as, for instance, in case of hackney carriages.' 1 A contract, however, for the sale of goods made on Sunday, is not affected by the statute, unless it is a complete contract on that day; Butler v. Lee, 11 Alab. 885; Adams v. Gray, 19 Vermont, 358, where the subject is elaborately examined. Thus, if the article was not to be delivered, or the price paid till another day, the contract would not be, under the Statute of Frauds, binding till that was done; Bloxsome v. Williams, 3 Barn. & Cress. 232; Beaumont v. Brengeri, 5 Com. Bench, 301. So of a promissory note written on that day, but not delivered till another; Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vermont, 379; Clough v. Davis, 9 N. Hamp. 500. And although the consummation of the transaction may occur on |