388 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



5 Esp. 263 ; and the same doctrine is held in Smith 

 V. Lawrence, 2 M. & R. I. 



It is not within the scope of my work to enter 

 upon the subject of post-horse duties, though the de- 

 cisions on points connected with it, cannot but be in- 

 teresting to a large class of my readers. The cases 

 last quoted contain every other matter of interest 

 likely to occur to the job-master or his customers. 



The right of inn-keepers is decided in Johnson v. 

 Hill, 3 Starkie, 172, where it is held, that '' an inn- 

 keeper has a lien upon a horse left with him, for the 

 keep, unless he knows that the horse has been ille- 

 gally obtained." 



The exception in this case clearly means, that the 

 inn-keeper, though he may assert a lien on the horse 

 against the party who left him in his charge and 

 against all other parties, if he has no notice of a bet- 

 ter title to him, cannot detain him from a third party 

 who has a better title, if he has received him into his 

 stable with notice of that fact. But I infer, though 

 doubtfully, that the inn-keeper, to deprive himself of 

 his lien, must not only have such notice, but have 

 done some act of a fraudulent character, accessory to 

 the illegal taking of the horse; for otherwise, he 



