bill, note, instrument, and security for money, and every trans- Illegal Sale of Coals. By the 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 63, sect. 9, Illegal Sale of Game. The 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 32, sects. 17, 1 The validity of sales questioned on the ground of any supposed violation of (m) The act is repealed, but sect. 9 798; 16 L. J. Ex. 126. As to the re- (n) Little v. Poole, 9 B. & C. 200; (0) Meredith v. Holman, 16 M. & W. 124. (p) Blanford v. Morrison, 15 Q. B. *without having a game certificate, and upon all un- [* 1161] licensed persons who buy game from unlicensed dealers. Illegal Sale of Spirituous Liquors. - The 24 Geo. III. c. 40, sect. 12, enacts that no person shall be entitled to sue for the price of spirituous liquors unless the debt shall have been bona fide contracted for at one time to the amount of 20s. or upwards, nor shall any particular item or article in any account or demand for distilled spirituous liquors be allowed and maintained where liquors delivered at one time and mentioned in such article or item shall not amount to 20s. at the least. (9) But by the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 38, the 24 Geo. III. c. 40, so far as it relates to spirituous liquors sold to be consumed elsewhere than on the premises where sold, and delivered at the residence of the purchaser thereof in quantities not less at any one time than a reputed quart, is repealed. Spirits mixed with water are spirituous liquors within the meaning of the act. (°) If payments are made on account of a tavern bill containing items for spirits, together with other general items, and the tavern-keeper appropriates the payments in satisfaction and discharge of his claim for the spirits, his right of action for the rest of his demand is not affected by the statute. (s) By the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, sect. 4, no action is thenceforth to be brought or be maintainable in any court to recover any debt or sum of money alleged to be due in respect of the sale of any ale, porter, beer, cider, or perry which was consumed on the premises where sold or supplied, or in respect of any money or goods lent or supplied, or of any security given for, on, or towards the obtaining of any such ale, &c. The sale of spirits is also regulated by the 43 & 44 Vict. c. 24, see sects. 146-149. Illegal Sale of Poison and Adulterated Food. The sale of arsenic is regulated by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 13, and that of other poisons by the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 121, and the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 117. (t) The selling of poisoned grain, meal, or seed is pro (7) Burnyeat v. Hutchinson, 5 B. & Ald. 241; Hughes v. Done, 1 Q B. 302; Lansdale v. Clarke, 1 Exch. 78. (r) Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226. See, further, as to what are spirits and spirituous liquors, Att.-Gen. v. Bailey, 1 Exch. 281; 16 M. & W. 74; Bailey v. (s) Philpott v. Jones, 2 Ad. & E. 41; 4 N. & M. 14; Owens v. Denton, 1 C. M. & R. 712. (t) See Berry v. Henderson, L. R. 5 hibited by the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 113, and the sale of adulterated food and drugs by the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, (tt) amended by the 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30. Illegal Sale of Explosive Substances. - The sale of explosive substances is regulated by the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 17; [* 1162] see also* 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 21. As to petroleum, see 34 & 35 Vict. c. 105; 42 & 43 Vict. c. 47; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 67. Chain-Cables and Anchors.1. By the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 101, sect. 7, it is made unlawful for any makers of, or dealer in, chaincables or anchors to sell, or contract to sell, for the use of any vessel, any chain-cable whatever, or any anchor exceeding in weight 168 lbs., unless they have been tested and stamped in accordance with the provisions of that act, and the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 27. And see 37 & 38 Vict. c. 51, sects. 3, 4. Smuggling. If goods are sold abroad for the purpose of being smuggled into this country, and the vendor knowingly packs the goods in a particular way, to aid and assist the act of smuggling, or in any way shares or participates in the illegal transaction, he will not be permitted to sue upon the contract in any of our courts of justice. (u) If the vendor is merely cognizant of the intention of the purchaser to smuggle the goods, and confines himself simply to the act of selling, rendering no aid or assistance to the purchasers in the prosecution of the smuggling, our courts of law will not refuse to assist him to recover the price. (x) Although a foreigner is not bound to take notice of the revenue laws of this country, yet, if he makes himself a direct party to the act of breaking them, he cannot here recover the fruits of his illegal act. (y) 1 On such subjects as are treated in this and the four preceding paragraphs, see p. 1160, American note. Q. B. 296; 39 L. J. M. C. 77; Pharma- Clugas v. Penaluna, 4 ib. 466; Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 556. (x) Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowp. 341; Pellecat v. Angell, 2 C. M. & R. (tt) Parsons v. Birmingham Dairy 311. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 172. (u) Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454; (y) Waymell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 600. Illegal Sale of Excisable Articles. Many acts of parliament, passed for the mere purpose of raising a revenue, require persons dealing in certain classes of goods to take out a license or permit, and impose a penalty upon them in case of their neglect so to do. The omission to take out a license required for mere revenue purposes does not render contracts of sale entered into by such dealers in the way of their trade unlawful, unless such contracts are expressly forbidden, but only exposes them to the penalty or fine imposed by the statute. (2) But when the license is required for the protection of the public and the prevention of improper persons from acting in a particular capacity, and is not confined to revenue purposes, the imposition of the penalty amounts to a positive prohibition of the contract. (a) In order to legalize the sale of wines, beer, and spirituous liquors, two licenses are necessary, one from the excise, the other from the magistrates in sessions. The license granted by the magistrates has no reference * whatever to revenue [* 1163] purposes; it is required solely for the protection and preservation of public morals, and the prevention of crimes and offences which are subversive of good order and the public safety. Every person, therefore, who sells wines, spirits, &c., without being duly licensed so to do, has no remedy for the recovery of the price thereof. (b) A brewer who sells beer to be consumed in a public-house is not bound to ascertain whether the party who orders the beer is duly licensed before he supplies the article. (c) Mere knowledge, moreover, on the part of the vendor that the buyer will make an illegal use of goods sold to him is not sufficient to deprive the vendor of his right to payment of the price. It is necessary that the vendor should be a sharer in the illegal transaction, and should render some aid beyond that of merely selling the goods. (d) (z) Johnson v. Hudson, 11 East, 180; Smith v. Mawhood, 14 M. & W. 463; Brown v. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 23; 5 M. & R. 114; Wetherell v. Jones, 3 B. & Ad. 221. 157. (b) Ritchie v. Smith, 6 C. B. 474; 18 L. J. C. P. 9. (c) Brooker v. Wood, 5 B. & Ad. 1052; 3 N. & M. 96. (d) Hodgson v. Temple, 5 Taunt. (a) Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 181; 1 Marsh. 5. Sunday Sales and Trading.1. By the 29 Car. II. c. 7, sect. 1, commonly called the Lord's Day Act, it is enacted that no 1 It is believed that every State (except, perhaps, Louisiana) has a "Sunday law." Most of these laws are modelled upon the 29 Car. II. c. 7, sect. 1, mentioned in the text, except that any intent, such as some portions of the old English statute indicate, to enforce religious duties is either excluded from American enactments, or disavowed in the practical administration of them. Sunday is protected only as a rest-day desired and needed by the masses of the people; and contracts and business on that day are forbidden, simply because of their tendency to disturb the people at large in the enjoyment of their day of rest. Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass. 40; Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Ry. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401, 432. In many of the States, the legislature would be debarred by constitutional provisions from enacting laws to compel a religious observance of any stated day (Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502); but many decisions declare that the legislatures, generally, have power to secure the day from secular interruptions, provided they do not dictate as to how the time and leisure of various persons shall be employed. See U. S. Dig. tit. Sabbath-Breaking. The recent cases on this point are: Ex parte Burk, 8 Pac. C. L. J. 522, 24 Alb. L. J. 463; 3 Crim. L. Mag. 181; Ex parte Koser, 9 Pac. L. J. 163, 25 Alb. L. J. 283; Usener v. State, 8 Tex. App. 177; Albrecht v. State, ib. 313; State v. Baltimore, &c. R. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362. But compare Ex parte Westerfield, 55 Cal. 550. For the decisions on the effect of the Sunday laws on contracts, business, labor, &c., see U. S. Dig. tit. Sunday; also ib. tit. Contracts, sect. 1328; Ann. Dig. 1870 -1878, tit. Contracts, III. subd. "Sunday Contracts; " Ann. Dig. 1879, &c., tit. Sunday. See, further, articles on Sunday contracts, when void and when binding, by J. H. Lind, 17 Am. L. Reg. N. s. 281; on Legal effect of Sunday, 19 Am L. Reg. N. s. 137, 209, 273; and on Sunday laws, what they mean, 13 West. Jur. 486. Recent cases allow agricultural labor required in feeding livestock or saving crops, according to the course of good husbandry. Edgerton v. State, 67 Ind. 588; Turner v. State, ib. 595. Repairing railroad track may be done, if to do it in the week would gravely interfere with running important trains. Yonoski r. State, 13 Reporter, 655. Telegraph companies are not warranted in keeping offices generally open for business of all comers, though they may justify sending any single message by showing a particular necessity. Rogers v. Western Union Tel. Co., 78 Ind. 169. Keeping cigar shops open is not "necessary," for customers can supply themselves on Saturday. Mueller v. State, 76 Ind. 310. Validity of an exchange of horses made on Sunday. Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355; Block v. McMurry, 56 Miss. 217; Gunderson v. Richardson, 56 Iowa, 56; Kinney v. McDermot, 55 Iowa, 674. Offer to compromise a suit, inoperative to affect costs, if made on Sunday. Merrill v. Robinson, 35 Ark. 483. Whether a borrower or a maker of a note or other evidence of debt may repudiate the obligation to pay, on the ground that the loan was made or the instrument given on Sunday, and whether a bona fide holder of such instrument is liable to the defence equally with the original payee. Ball v. Powers, 62 Ga. 757 ; Parker v. Pitts, 73 Ind. 597; Gilbert v. Vachon, 69 Ind. 372; Stevens v. Wood, 127 Mass. 123; Lamore v. Frisbie, 42 Mich. 186; Hellams v. Abercrombie, 15 S. C. 110; Mace v. Putnam, 71 Me. 238; Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46. Price of goods sold and delivered on Sunday is not recoverable; but if delivery or final decision to buy was reserved till Monday, the bargain is valid. Moseley r. Vanhooser, 6 Lea, 286; Rosenblatt v. Townsley, 73 Mo. 536; and see Van Hoven v. Irish, 10 Fed. Reporter, 13; Flinn v. St. John, 51 |