IN SEARCH OF A HOESB. 265 



sold them before the the thief was convicted; not 

 even though the purchaser had notice of the rob- 

 bery: this doctrine is laid down, after elaborate 

 argument in Horwood v. Smith, 2 Term Reports, 

 750. 



In a case where goods had been obtained, not by 

 felony but by fraud, and then had been pawned by 

 the swindler, it was held that notwithstanding a pro- 

 secution to conviction, and although the owner had 

 recovered possession of his goods, the pawnbroker 

 could recover against him the money which he had 

 lent ;* vide Parker v. Patrick, 5 Term Reports, 

 175. In the case of stolen horses, however, there is 

 some difference, occasioned by two statutes which 

 have been expressly made on the subject ; the first 

 of these is the 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 7, which 

 regulate the manner in which horses are to be sold in 

 fairs and markets, and requires a note to be made 

 of all horses so sold ; the other statute, of the 31st 

 Elizabeth, cap. 12, requires that the sellers of horses 



* I have a strong impression that by some recent statute, a 

 pa-vrnbroker is compellable to restore stolen goods gratuitously, on 

 proof of the robbery, though no prosecution follows ; but I cannot 

 at the moment recall the act to my mind. 



23* 



