also not to commit waste on the parsonage house, was good. In Partridge v. Whiston, 4 T. R. 359, it was doubted, whether a bond of resignation, with a condition to reside, to resign for the patron's son to be presented, and to keep the premises on the living in repair, was, or was not, good in law. In Lord Sondes v. Fletcher, 5 B. & A. 835, a bond was conditioned for the resignation of a living, which the defendant, when requested, refused to resign; and it was held, that he was a wrong-doer, and that the plaintiff might recover. That case was afterwards carried to the House of Lords, where the decision of the court of King's Bench was reversed, and the resignation bond held to be void, after much discussion and much difference of opinion among the judges. And see Gibson's Codex, 799, 800; Watson's Complete Incumbent, 37, 8; Burn's Eccl. Law, iii. 353, et seq., and the cases there respectively collected.

(23) The statute 1 Car. I. c. 1, is confined to unlawful exercises and pastimes, and it has never yet been decided that bull-baiting is unlawful. By 3 Geo. IV. c. 71, if any person shall wantonly and cruelly beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or other cutile, such person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 5l., nor less than 10s. But bulls not being specifically named in that statute, it has been held that bull-baiting is not an offence within its operation. Exparte Hill, 1 M. & R. M. C. 105. See also the note, Id. 106. The

statute in question was undoubtedly intended to include and put down the practice of bull-baiting; and the friends of humanity must lament, that so desirable a portion of its object has been defeated by the accidental omission of a single word. Several attempts have since been made to pass a specific law for the abolition of this barbarous practice, but hitherto without success. The decision in ex-parte Hill may be considered, by persons unskilled in rules of law, and ignorant of their importance, to have been founded on somewhat subtle distinctions; but, where such distinctions are made in favour of the liberty of the subject, as in that case, they surely deserve praise rather than reprehension.

(24) Milk may be cried and sold before nine in the morning and after four in the afternoon. 29 Car. 2, c. 7, § 3.

Meat may be dressed and sold in inns, cook's shops, and victualling houses. Id.

Mackerel may be sold before and after divine service. 10 & 11 W. III. c. 24.

Bread may be sold between nine in the morning and one in the afternoon, and bakings delivered till half-past one in the afternoon. 3 Geo. IV. c. 106, $ 16.

A limited number of watermen may ply on the Thames, under certain regulations, and within certain limits. 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 75, § 42.

Fish carriages are allowed to travel on Sundays either laden or returning empty. 2 Geo. III. c. 15. Persons

an offence and religion.

exercising their calling on a Sunday are only subject to one penalty; for the whole is but one offence, or one act of exercising, though continued the whole day; Cowp. 640.

(25) It has been recently held, that the driver of a stage-van to and from London to York is a common carrier within the meaning of 3 Car. I. c. 1, and subject to the penalties thereof for travelling on Sunday; Rex v. Middleton, 4 D. & R. 824. Where a parol contract was entered into for the purchase of a horse above the value of 10., on a Sunday, with a warranty of soundness, and the horse was not delivered and paid for until the following Tuesday, held, first, that the contract was not complete until the latter day; and second, that supposing it to be void within the 29 Car. II. c. 7, § 2, still it was not an available objection on the part of the vendor in an action for a breach of the warranty, the vendee being ignorant of the fact, that the former was exercising his ordinary calling on the Sunday. Bloxsome v. Williams, 5 D. & R. 82; 3 B. & C. 232.

It has been held, that this statute applies to private as well as public conduct; and therefore, that a horsedealer cannot maintain an action upon a private contract for the sale and warranty of a horse if made on a Sunday. Fennell v. Ridler, 8 D. & R. 204; 5 B. & C. 406. So in Smith v. Sparrow, 12 Moore, 266; 4 Bing, 84; 2 C. & P. 554, it was held that an action would not lie on a contract made on a Sunday, though made by an agent, and though the objection was taken by the principal: but, in Rea v. Whitnash, I M. & R. 452; 7 B. & C. 596, it was held, that a contract of hiring and service for a year, made between a farmer and a labourer on a Sunday,

was not within the prohibition of section 1 of the act, and that due service under it conferred a settlement; and in Sandiman v. Bridge, 1 M. & R. 457, note; 9 D. & R. 796; 7 B. & C. 96, it was held, that stagecoach proprietors were not prohibited from travelling on a Sunday by either of the acts, 3 Car. I. c. 1, or 29 Car. II. c. 7. By 29 Car. II. c. 7, no arrest can be made, nor process served, on a Sunday, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Ante vol. iii. 290. Where by the contrivance of plaintiff's attorney, a party had been arrested on a Sunday on criminal process, for the purpose of affecting his arrest on civil process, and was detained in custody till Monday, and then arrested on the civil process, the court of King's Bench ordered him to be discharged out of custody. Wells v. Gurney, 8 B. & C. 769. Neither is the hundred answerable to the party robbed, for a robbery committed on a Sunday. But where a plaintiff was robbed in going to his parish church, in his coach, on a Sunday, he recovered against the hundred, under the statute of Winton, 13 Edw. I. st. 2, the court observing, that the statute of Charles must be construed to extend only to cases of travelling, and that it might have been otherwise if the plaintiff had been making visits, or the like. Teshmaker v. the Hundred of Edmonton, M. 7 Geo. I. See 1, Stra. 406; Com. 345. But the hundred is not now liable at all; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 31. Killing game on a Sunday is prohibited, under heavy penalties, by 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32. See 3 Chitty's Burn, title Lord's Day, 657, 2 Chitty's Statutes, title Sunday, 1036.

(26) Vide ante 26, note (5).

alone found guilty. By the 25 Geo. II. c. 36, § 5, constables are compellable to prosecute persons keeping bawdy-houses. By the 58 Geo. III. c. 70, § 7, overseers are required to perform that duty. By 3 Geo. IV. c. 114, the keeping a bawdy-house is made punishable with hard labour and imprisonment, instead of, or in addition to, other punishment. And by 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, § 4, exposing a man's person with intent to insult a female, is punishable with imprisonment; and by § 3, common prostitutes behaving in a publicly indecent manner, are liable to imprisonment.

(31) Many offences of the incontinent kind fall properly under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court, and are appropriated to it. But except those appropriated cases, the court of King's Bench is the custos morum of the people, and has the superintendency of offences contra bonos mores; 3 Burr. 1438. In that court, in the reign of Charles the Second, Sir Charles Sedley was indicted for exposing himself naked in a balcony in Covent-garden, and the court declared it was the custos morum of all the king's subjects; and it was determined to punish such profane actions, which were so contrary to good manners as well as christianity; but, in consideration that he was a gentleman of a very ancient family and his estate incumbered, and as it did not wish his ruin but his reformation, the judgment of the court was only that he should pay a fine of 2000 marks, be imprisoned a week, and bound to his good behaviour for three years; 1 Sid.

The offence of buying and selling a wife is unquestionably a misdemeanor at common law, and an indictment against all the parties concerned in a

168. An information has been granted against a number of persons concerned in assigning a young girl as an apprentice to a gentleman under pretence of learning music, but for the purposes of prostitution; 3 Burr. 1438. There is also an instance of an information for a conspiracy against a peer and several others for enticing away a young lady from her father's house, and procuring her seduction. The young lady was the sister of his wife. That circumstance was undoubtedly a great aggravation of the offence, yet its existence in the case was not necessary to give the court cognizance of the prosecution; 3 St. Tr. 519. In a case, where a husband had formally assigned his wife over to another man, Lord Hardwicke directed a prosecution for that transaction, as being notoriously and grossly against public decency and good manners; 3 Burr. 1438. It is extraordinary that prosecutions are not instituted against those who publicly sell their wives, and against those who buy them. Such a practice is shameful and scandalous in itself, and encourages other acts of criminality and wickedness. It now prevails to a degree, that the punishment of some, convicted of this offence, by exposure in the pillory would afford a salutary example. All such acts of indecency and immorality are public misdemeanors, and the offenders may be punished either by an information granted by the court of King's Bench, or by an indictment preferred before a grand jury at the assizes or quarter sessions.—CH. *

transaction of that nature has been recently prosecuted to conviction at one of our courts of quarter sessions. Either party marrying again, during the life