
    McElroy v. Chancellor.
    Where the plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace for a forfeit on a failure to run a horse-race, and judgment went against the plaintiff for costs, and he, after the expiration of ninety days from the judgment, filed a petition in the District Court for an injunction to restrain the collection of the costs and for anew trial,alleging that the day for running tho race was fixed on a Sunday by mistake for Saturday, the preceding day* of which the defendant had notice — a pveliminai'y injunction having been granted: Held, That tho character of the suit had no claim to the favorable interposition of equity principles of jurisprudence, and that the injunction was properly dissolved and the petition dismissed.
    Appeal from Smith. The appellant brought bis action in a Justice’s Court to recover the amouut of sixty dollars, oil an agreement under seal with the •defendant to run a horse-race at a certain time and place. The party failing ■to run was to forfeit the amount bet on (he race. The date set out for the race to be run was on the Sabbath day. The plaintiff alleged that the date was a -mistake; that it was intended to be the day before, i. «., Saturday, and was only a mistake in the clay of the month. He alleged that on discovering the-mistake he went to tiie defendant and proposed to set another day, either sooner or later, which proposition was wholly rejected by defendant, and that the defendant would not run the race. Tiie justice gave a judgment against the plaintiff for all costs. The plaintiff, after ninety days, liled his petition in the District Court praying a new trial, and obtained an injunction. The District Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the petition. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      D. J. McLemore, for appellant.
    I.A mistake in a written agreement may be corrected by oral testimony. In this case there was a mistake in the time of running the race; it was to be run on Saturday instead of Sunday. (2 Starkie on JSv., 766-67, and note (B> (l) 768; Mead v. Randolph, decided at this terra of this court; 1 United States Dig., title Evidence, arts. 1766,1711,1703, and the eases there cited.)
    H. Horse-racing for a less distance than a mile countenanced and allowed-in this State. (McElroy v. Henry, and Carmichael, and other eases on this subject.)
    
      W. W. Morris, for appellee.
    I. Tiie petition of plaintiff was correctly dismissed. If it be considered a bill for an injunction, the facts set forth are not sufficient to overhaul the judgment of the justice. If a petition for a certiorari, it was not granted before tiie expiration of ninety days from the rendition of tiie judgment sought to be removed.
    II. The petition seeks to enforce an illegal agreement to run a horse-race. It is believed that no case can be found going so far. The cases decided by this court do not go to tiie extent of enforcing an illegal agreement, and it is believed that no extension of the doctrine should be tolerated.
    III. The horse-race in this question is not such as those regulated by statute in England. There tiie idea was to induce the improvement of the noble stock here, in quarter racing, the idea is to win money and have a frolic — exerting the most pernicious influence on the country. Surely an agreement to put these vicious engines in motion is contrary to public policy, and void; and further* that tiie record shows that the race was to have been run on the Sabbatli day.
   Lipscomb, J.

Tiie character of this suit had no claim to the favorable interposition of equity principles of jurisprudence, and the injunction, ought not to have been granted, and there was no error in dissolving it and dismissing the petition. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  