Page images
[ocr errors]

Act(n), commonly called the Stock-jobbing Act, it is enacted, that “ all contracts and agreements “ whatsoever made and entered into for the buy“ing, selling, assigning or transferring of any

public joint-stock or stocks or other public “ securities whatsoever, or of any part, share or “ interest therein, whereof the person or persons

contracting or agreeing, or on whose behalf the

contract or agreement shall be made to sell, “ assign, and transfer the same, shall not, at the “ time of making such contract or agreement, be “ actually possessed of or entitled unto in his, “ her, or their own right, or in his, her, or their

own name or names, or in the name or names “ of a trustee or trustees to their use, shall o be null and void to all intents and purposes “ whatsoever ().” But it is provided, that this shall not prevent any person from “ lending any .“ sum or sums of money on any public or joint“ stock or other public securities whatsoever, or

any part, share or interest therein; or to pre

vent any defeazance, contract or agreement “ being made and entered into, for the re-deliver“ing, assigning or transferring of such public or

joint-stock or other public securities, or any part, “share or interest therein, upon the re-payment “ of the sum or sums of money, which shall have

(n) 7 Geo. II. c. 8; (made perpetual by 10 Geo. II. c. 8.) () 7 Geo. II. c. 8, s. 8; Breton v. Cope, Peake, 31.

“ been lent and borrowed thereupon, with interest “ for the same; so as no premium or other con“ sideration whatsoever be paid to or received by “the person or persons lending such money, for

or in consideration of such loan, more than legal “ interest(p)."

The words “public or joint-stock” relate to the British public funds; and a trafficking in Colombian bonds is not within the statute (9). But it has been held that omnium is stock(r). The tickets of a public lottery are not securities within the act(s).

Where the plaintiff empowered the defendant to sell out £3000, 4 per cent, stock, for his own benefit, in consideration of which defendant undertook to transfer at the next opening the same amount of stock in the plaintiff's name; this was held not to be within the prohibition of the eighth section of the statute, but within the exception of the eleventh(t). It is neither usurious, nor contrary to the stock-jobbing act, to take the full

(p) 7 Geo. II. c. 8, s. 11.

(9) Henderson y. Bise, 3 Stark. N. P. C. 158, coram Abbott, C. J.

(r) Brown v. Turner, 2 Esp. 631 ; S. C. 7 T. R. 630; Olivierson v. Coles, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 496.

(8) Mortimer v. Salkeld, 4 Campb. 42. (But the sale of lottery tickets would now be illegal, see 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 37. See Deey v. Shee, 2 T. R. 617.)

(1) Saunders v. Kentish, 8 T. R. 162. And see Maddock v. Rumball, 8 East, 804.

[ocr errors]

interest which the stock itself would have pro-
duced, though the interest exceed five per cent.,
unless the transaction be colourable, and a mere
device to obtain an usurious rate of interest(u).

[ocr errors]

Sale of small The tippling Act.—By the tippling Act(2) it is
quantities of
spirituous enacted, that" no person shall maintain any action

“ for any debt or demand for any spirituous liquors, .
“ unless such debt has been bona fide contracted at
“ one time to the amount of 20s. or upwards; nor
“ shall any item in any account be allowed where
“ the liquors delivered at one time and mentioned
« in such item shall not amount to 20s. at the
“ least, without fraud; and where no part of the

liquors sold or delivered shall have been returned
or agreed to be returned directly or indirectly."

It was held by Lord Kenyon, C. J., that the
statute does not apply where the liquor was sold
to an eating-house keeper for the purpose of being
sold again by the latter to his customers(y). But
this case seems to be overruled, and the statute is
equally applicable whether the sale was to the
consumer himself or not(z).

It is immaterial whether the spirits are sold alone or mixed with water(a). Where the charge

(u) Tate v. Wellings, 3 T. R. 531.
(x) 24 Geo. II. c. 40.
(y) Jackson v. Attrill, Peake, 180.
(z) Burnyeat v. Hutchinson, 5 B. & A. 241.
(a) Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226.

forms one item in a bill, the statute bars the recovery of that item, though the plaintiff may recover for the residue (b). If two kinds of spirits are sold at the same time, amounting together to more than 20s., the seller may recover, though each separately were below that value (c).

The defendant cannot urge this statute as an objection to the claims of the plaintiff, after a settlement of accounts had between them(d).



By the statute of Charles II., for the better ob- The Lord's

day. servation of the Lord's day, it is enacted (a), “ that

no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or "other person whatsover, shall do or exercise any “ worldly labour, business or work, of their ordi

nary callings, upon the Lord's day or any part “ thereof (works of necessity and charity only

(6) Gilpin v. Rendle, Selw. N. P. 6).
(c) Owen v. Porter, 4 C. & P. 367, coram Bosanquet, J.

(d) Dawson v. Remnant, 6 Esp. 24; and see Spencer v. Smith, 3 Campb. 9 ; Crookshunk v. Rose, 5 C. & P. 19; post. [On the same principle it was held in a late case, that the value of goods sold by an illegal measure might be set off in an action brought against the vendor, where such claim had been included in a settlement of accounts between the parties, Owens v. Denton, 1 Çr. M. & Rosc. 711 ; see Knor v. Whalley, 1 Esp. 159.]

(a) 29 Car. II. c. 7, s. 1.

excepted).” And that "no person or persons “ whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or ex

pose to sale, any wares, merchandizes, fruits, “ herbs, goods or chattels whatsoever, upon the “Lord's day or any part thereof."


Sales on Sunday void.

Upon this statute it has been decided, that a horse-dealer cannot maintain an action on the sale and warranty of a horse, made on Sunday (6). And the plaintiff cannot recover, though it were at the express instance and request of the defendant, that the contract was entered into on that day (c). Bayley, B. once expressed a doubt (d), whether the statute was intended to apply to all bargains on Sunday, and whether it was not confined to manual labour, and other work visibly laborious, and the keeping of open shops. But the learned Judge on a subsequent occasion obseryed, that he was satisfied such a construction would be contrary to the spirit of the Act. (e).

To make a sale void under this statute, it must be proved to be within the ordinary calling of the seller or his agent. Therefore, where the plaintiff was a horse-auctioneer, and sold a horse on Sunday by private contract, it was held that the statute

If within seller's ordiDary calling

(6) Fennell v. Ridler, 5 B. & C. 406.
(c) Smith v. Sparron, 4 Bingh. 84.
(d) 3 B. & C. 234.
(€) 5 B. & C. 407.

« PreviousContinue »