Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1847-04-01
ants. Opinion of the Court pronounced by h
field, ]. Decree of the chancellor affirmed.

| o, 'o"" JiuuWS VI. s1TTeu u1y'
lroVer Tor horse. 1t appeared that the pal
shire, on Sunday, and that the defendant deceivl
and deiraudcd the plaintiff in the trade, The d|
ception was discovered the same day. and nolil
given 10 the defendant, and, within reosonalI
time after and not on Sunday, the plaintiff tel
dered back the horse he had received and demonI
ed his own horse. The defendant refused IN an
render him, The defendant, on trial. insis,
that the trade, having been made or Sunday, W
so affected with illegally, that the plaintiff wi
not entitled 10 recover. Verdict for plaintiff: II
ceptions by defendant. point was now ma
by the counsel for The plaintiff, that it did no, al
pear upon the bill Of exceptions, that there WI
in New Hampshire at the time Of the excAanlI
any statute, by which the contract on Sunday VI
prohibited, and that this court could not judic !
" notice the fact, that there was such law. +
Argument by J. ConueTse and J. W. Richards
for def, and by p. r. Wash6urn, for pit.
The Court, per Redfeld, ]. held that matters
criminal law and of police regulation in oil
States should not be judicially noticed by II
court; that ther is Ia distinction, in this respel
between laws of this character and laws respe
ing the taking Of dispositions, or the general ot
galcn oil contracts; and that in strctness, the Id
OF New Hampshire. in reference to contracts ma
on Sunday, should have been proved in this ca
but the court intimated, that they should not d
eide the case upon this ground, without giving L
defendant an opportunity to amend his case.
The court also held, that the authorities sh 4
that contract made on Sunday, is not so imm
al, that an action cannot be sustained upon it, 1
cept so far as it is prohibited by express statu
and that it would be extremely difficult TO hold a
general principles, that contract made on 81
day is immoral in itself, when it is apparent
there are so many different and consclentid
opinions upon the subject,-as in The case of
seventh day habits, the Roman Catholics,
Quakers who hold all days alike, and the d
therans, who hold certain days as Ash Wedn
day and good Friday, 10 be more sacred than e
the ordinary sabbath. That, therefore the cd
could not sustain the defence on the ground d.
the contract was immoral in itself,
The court also intimated, that even Il it be
en- as granted that there was in the state of a.
Hampshire, stated law Of the nature claimed
the Defendant, it was matter of doubt, whell
after all, the courts Of this state ought TO give
feet TO it in The method claimed; whether the m
lusing TO interfere with contracts, which are
gal as they are made so by statute, is not, IT
matter of policy, saying that we will not hel
man, if he has violated our own laws.
| The court also held that they were not prep1
10 say, that party may always proceed in di
frmance Off contract illegal by statute; but
in this respect, Sundny contracts may be dis
gushed from other contracts tainted with illega
that all illegal contract when purged of
illegally, become valid; but that contract
moral in itself, and void for that, cannot b,
purged; that it is shown by the authorities, Il
Sunday contract may be purged of its illegd
by subsequent ratification; that they stand
like promises made by an infant, which ina
may not be ratified, or like contracts, within
statute of hauds, for the sale of lands, where
price has been paid and performance has beer
fused that, in case Of Sunday contract, the
ty may demand the property, and the refus
deliver it is to be treated as an atfirmance,
that this may be done by either party; thai
was the oal y saIutary doctrine, which coul
applied to cases of this character, and that II
fore the judgment Of the court below mul
affirmed.