Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-03-26
court Calcu0ar.
Supreme Court.


JOHN ADAMS u.s. ALFRED GAY.
Trover for horse. /, appeared that the parties ey-
changed horses in the State Of New Hampshire, on
Sunday and that the defendant deceived and deirau-
dcd the plaintiff in the trade. The deception was dis
covered the same day and notice given the defend
ant and, within reasonable time after and not on
Sunday the plaintiilendercd back the horse he had
received and demanded his own horse Tic defend
ant refused TO surrender him. The defendant on
trial insisted that the trade, having been made on
Sunday was affected with Mcgditg that the plain
I'll was not entitled to recover. Verdict for plaintiff
exceptions by defendant. point was now made by
the counsel Tor the plaintiff, that did appear up
on the bill OF descriptions that there in New Iiamp-
SHIRE at the time OF the exchange, any statute, by
which the contract on Sunday was prohibited. and
that this court could not ludciay notice the fact that
there was such law. Argument by J. Conrerse and
J. ". Richardson for delft, and by p r. WASH
barn, Tor pit.
The Court per Rrpr1rLD, J. held that matters of
criminal law and OF police regulation in other States
should not be ludciay noticed by this court that
there Is distinction, III tins respect, between laws OF
TINS character and laws respecting the taking of depo-
sitlons, or the general obligation OF contracts and
that in strictness, the law OF New Hampshire, in ref
erencc TO contracts made on Sunday should have been
proved in this case but the court intimnted, that
they should not decide the upon this ground, with
out giving the defendant an opportunity 10 amend his
case.
The Court also held that the authorities show that
contract made on Sunday, is not so immoral. that
an action cannot be sustained upon it, except far
II prohibited by express statute and that it would
De extremely dillcult TO mold. on general principles,
that contract made Sunday is immoral in Itself
when II isapparent that there many different
and conscientious opinions upon the SUBJECT in
the case OF the seventh day babtiss, the Roman Cath
ocs, the Qunkers-- hold all DAYS nike and the
Lutherdns who hold certain DAYS, as Ash Wcdncs-
day and Good Friday to be more sacred than even the
ordinary sabbath. That, therefore the court could
not sustain the d-icncc the ground that the contract
was immoral IN ITSELF
The Court also minated that even il il be taken
granted that there was III the State OF lew Hamp-
shire, a stated law OF the nature claimed by the de-
icndant it was matter of doubt. whether after all,
the courts OF this state ought give effect 10 il in the
method claimed; whether the refusing to interfere
with contracts which illegal only as they are
made SO 10y statute, not, matter OF peiicu
saying that we viii not help man, il he has violated
our own laws.
The Court also held, that they not prepared 10
say, that party may always proceed IN diSdi,aaace
OF contract illegal by statute but that in this Ic
spec., Sunday contracts may be distinguished from
other contracts tainted with cgav that all Illegal
contract when purgcd Of thclrilegaltv become val
IL but that a contract immoral in Itself and void for
that, cannot be SO purgcd that 1t Is shown hv the al-
thortes that Sunday contract may b. purlcd Of its
rgaiy by subsequent ratification thu, they stand
then, Ike promises made by an infant, which NAV or
may not To- ratified like contracts within the stat
ute oiluds Tor the sale otlunds where the price has
been paid ana performance has been refused that
IN case OF a Sunday contract the party may demand
the property and the refusal deliver it is to be treat
cd as an GgirHGHce, and that this may be done by
either party; that TINS was the only salutarv doctrine
which could BE- applied TO OF this character and
that therefore til, Jud mcnt OF the court below must
be affirmed