"Any manner of labor, business, or work." The execution of a will is not such. Bennett v. Brooks, 9 Allen 118.

"Works of necessity." The carrying of the mails has been held to be such. Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76. So the repair of a defect in the highway. Flagg v. Millbury, 4 Cush. 243. But as to the receiving of criminal complaints and the issuing of warrants on the Lord's day, see Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324, 345. See also cases cited under section 2.

The gathering of sea-weed on a beach on the Lord's day is not a work of necessity, although, unless then gathered, it will probably be floated away beyond reach. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407.

The hoeing on the Lord's day of crops, which are suffering from the want of hoeing, is not a work of necessity. Commonwealth v. Josselyn, 97 Mass. 411.

A contract made on the Lord's day in violation of this section is absolutely void, and no subsequent ratification will make it possible to maintain an action upon it. Day v. McAllister, 15 Gray 433.

Upon a bond executed on the Lord's day in violation of this section no action can be maintained. Pattee v. Greely, 13 Met. 284. So of a guaranty so executed, although it did not take effect as a contract until a later date. Merriam v. Stearns, 10 Cush. 257. Nor can an action be maintained for a deceit practised in the exchange of horses on the Lord's day. Robeson v. French, 12 Met. 24. But money paid on the Lord's day, and retained afterwards, discharges a debt. Johnson v. Willis, 7 Gray 164.

The fact that the request for services afterwards rendered on a week day, was made on the Lord's day, if it does not appear that the request was accepted on that day, will not prevent the party rendering the service from maintaining an action upon the promise implied in such request. Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45.

A note made and delivered on a week day will not be void

because dated, and by agreement to take effect, on a subsequent Lord's day. Stacy v. Kemp, 97 Mass. 166.

Where a horse was sold and delivered on the Lord's day, it was held that, although the purchaser kept him afterwards, the owner could not maintain an action of contract against him for the price of the horse, but that his only remedy was by an action of tort in the nature of trover; it seems however that, if the purchaser had sold the horse, the owner might have brought an action of contract for the proceeds. Ladd v. Rogers, 11 Allen 209, 212. When however pigs were sold on Sunday and delivered and accepted on Monday, it was held that the owner might recover their value from the purchaser in an action of contract upon an implied assumpsit. Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen 20.

As to the form of complaint or indictment for offences under this section, see Commonwealth v. Collins, 2 Cush. 556.Commonwealth v. Wright, 12 Allen 187.- Commonwealth v. Trickey, 13 Allen 559. — Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407. Commonwealth v. Josselyn, 97 Mass. 411.

-

SECT. 2. "Whoever travels," &c. As to what constitutes travelling, see Hamilton v. Boston, 14 Allen 475, 484, in which case it was held that one who takes a short walk for exercise does not "travel" within the meaning of this section. In this case Judge Gray gives a historical sketch of all the early laws upon the subject of travelling on the Lord's day.

As to what are sufficient reasons for travelling on the Lord's day, see Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324, 350.- Stanton v. Metropolitan R.R. Co., 14 Allen 485, 486. — Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen 18.- Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76. See also cases cited under preceding section.

A person travelling on the Lord's day cannot recover of a town for injuries received by him from a defect in the highway, unless his travelling was from necessity or charity, and the burden is upon him to show that it was so. Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Met. 363. In an action to recover for such in

juries the defendant may prove the plaintiff's violation of the statute as a defence, without having specially averred it in the answer. Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen 18.

Nor can one maintain an action against a street railway company for a personal injury received by him, in consequence of their negligence, while travelling in one of their cars upon the Lord's day contrary to this section. Stanton v. Metropolitan R.R. Co., 14 Allen 485.

The owner of a horse, who lets it to be driven in violation of this section, cannot recover for injuries caused to the horse by the immoderate driving of the hirer, even although such injuries are occasioned in going to a different place from that to which the horse was hired to go. Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322.

One who travels illegally on the Lord's day, and stops at a hotel, and delivers his property for keeping into the charge of the landlord's servant, may recover of the landlord the value of such property, if it is not to be found on the following day. Cox v. Cook, 14 Allen 165, 166.

SECT. 3. Repealed and superseded by St. 1864, c. 79.

SECT. 9. This is matter of defence, to be alleged and proved by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Trickey, 13 Allen 559.

CHAPTER LXXXV.

OF GAMING.

"Act to prevent gaming in public conveyances." St. 1869, c. 382.

SECT. 1. Dog-fighting is a "game" within the meaning of this section. Grace v. McElroy, 1 Allen 563.

If the loser does not commence his action under this section within three months, his right of action is lost. Shed v. Tileston, 8 Gray 243.

SECT. 2. Throwing dice to determine who shall pay for liquor, or for any other article bought, is "gaming" within

the meaning of this section. Commonwealth v. Gourdier, 14 Gray 390.

99.66

SECT. 8. "Persons who are found present at any game or sport played for money or other thing of value at a common gaming-house may be arrested and punished in like manner as persons there found playing." St. 1869, c. 364, s. 1. SECT. 9. See additional provision in St. 1861, c. 127, s. 2.

CHAPTER LXXXVI.

OF THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, ETC., OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS. This chapter, having been amended by St. 1861, c. 136, and St. 1865, c. 223, was repealed and a license law was substituted by St. 1868, c. 141. That act, having been amended by St. 1868, c. 311. St. 1868, c. 318.-St. 1868, c. 342.-St. 1868, c. 344, and St. 1869, c. 191, was in its turn repealed, and the provisions of this chapter substantially re-enacted, by St. 1869, c. 415. See also St. 1869, c. 442.

CHAPTER LXXXVII.

OF THE SUPPRESSION OF COMMON NUISANCES.

As to the right of an individual to abate a common nuisance, see Brown v. Perkins, 12 Gray 89.

SECT. 6, 7. Jurisdiction of offences under these sections given to police courts, but punishment limited. St. 1863, c. 78. -St. 1865, c. 289, s. 2. St. 1865, c. 281.- St. 1866, c. 280, s. 3, 4.

269.

SECT. 6. "Resorted to." As to the meaning of these words, see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 12 Allen 177.-Com

monwealth v. Stahl, 7 Allen 304.

"Lewdness." As to the meaning of this word, see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 12 Allen 177.

66

Illegal gaming." This includes playing any game of hazard to determine who shall pay for liquor. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 14 Gray 26.— Commonwealth v. Gourdier, 14 Gray 390.

SECT. 7, 8, 9. Cases under these sections not to be disposed of except by trial, unless on affidavit for good cause, &c. St. 1865, c. 223.

SECT. 7. Persons convicted of any offence set forth in this chapter to be punished by fine of not less than $50 nor more than $100, and imprisoned in house of correction not less than three nor more than twelve months, except, &c. St. 1866, c. 280, s. 1, 3. (See also St. 1865, c. 269, s. 1.)

See the following cases arising under this section. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray 328.- Commonwealth v. Keefe, 9 Gray 290.- Commonwealth v. Dunbar, 9 Gray 298. — Commonwealth v. Buxton, 10 Gray 9. - Commonwealth v. Skelley, 10 Gray 464.- Commonwealth v. Hart, 10 Gray 465.Commonwealth v. Davis, 11 Gray 48.- Commonwealth v. Godley, 11 Gray 454. Commonwealth v. McArty, 11 Gray 456. Commonwealth v. Kelley, 12 Gray 175.- Commonwealth v. Farrand, 12 Gray 177.- Commonwealth v. Quinn, 12 Gray 178.- Commonwealth v. Howe, 13 Gray 26.-Commonwealth v. Shattuck, 14 Gray 23.- Commonwealth v. Shea, 14 Gray 386. Commonwealth v. Gourdier, 14 Gray 390.Commonwealth v. Welsh, 1 Allen 1.- Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 1 Allen 592.- Commonwealth v. Carolin, 2 Allen 169. Commonwealth v. Hill, 4 Allen 589.

SECT. 8. "Shall annul and make void the lease." It seems that it will have this effect only at the election of the lessor. Trask v. Wheeler, 7 Allen 109, 111.- Way v. Reed, 6 Allen 364, 370.

If an under-tenant of a lessee, without his knowledge, uses the leased premises for any of the illegal purposes specified, such use will not annul the original lease. O'Connell v. M'Grath, 14 Allen 289.- Healy v. Trant, 15 Gray 312.

By"the owner" in this section is meant not the person