HORSE STEALING. 63 



appears to "be that the former implies permanent injury, 

 while the latter does not necessarily do so. 



It is not necessary under this statute to prove that any Use of in- 

 instrument has been used; where the roots of a Horse's ^*'^^Jf^*^"f*v 

 tongue were lacerated, and the tongue was protruding from proved, 

 his mouth, and there was only evidence to show that the 

 injury had been done by the prisoner's hand, it was held 

 that an offence against the act had been committed {>•). 



To support an indictment under these sections, it is un- Malice, 

 necessary to give evidence of Malice against any particular 

 person (s), yet an evil intent in the prisoner must appear. 

 Thus, in a case in which the prisoner, a groom, adminis- 

 tered sulphuric acid to his Horses, Parke, J., left it to 

 the Jury to say, whether he had done it with the intent 

 feloniously to kill them, or under the impression that it 

 would improve their appearance (there being some evidence 

 of a practice of that kind among grooms), and that in the 

 latter case they ought to acquit him {t). 



Where, however, the act is cruel and wanton the law 

 will imply malice. Thus, where a man caused the death of 

 a Mare from internal injuries not intending by his act to 

 kill, maim, or wound her, and acting recklessly and not 

 caring whether she was injured or not, though without any 

 ill-will or spite, either towards the owner of the animal, 

 or the animal herself, and without any motive except the 

 gratification of his own depraved tastes, he was found 

 gudty of maliciously killing the Mare contrary to the 

 Statute {i(). 



By 39 Yict. c. 13 (The Drugging of Animals Act, 1876), Drugging of 

 the practice of administering poisonous drugs to Horses and ^^"^ ^ ' 

 other animals by disqualified persons and without the 

 knowledge and consent of the o^vner of such animals is 

 made punishable by fine or imprisonment. The act does 

 not extend to the owner of the animal, nor anyone acting 

 under his authority, nor does it exempt a person from pun- 

 ishment under any other act, so that he be not punished 

 more than once for the same offence. 



KECOVERY OF STOLEN HORSES. 



Although as a general rule the purchaser of stolen goods Sale in Mar- 

 in Market overt acquires a title to them, this is not the case o"^ert. 



(>•) a. V. HullocJc, 37 L. J., M. C. 91 ; 30 L. T., N". S. 405 ; 22 W. R. 



47 ; L. R., 1 C. C. R. 115. 553 ; 12 Cox, C. C. 607. 



(*) H. V. Tlvetj, 1 C. & K. 704. {() H. v. Mogg, 4 C. & P. 364. 



See also Reg. v. Fcmbliton, L. R., («) i?. v. Welch, 45 L. J., M. C. 



2C. C. R. 119; 43 L. J., M. C. 17. 



