240 



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 prosecution to conviction, and although the owner 

 had recovered possession of bis goods, the pawn- 

 broker could recover against him the money which 

 he had lent ; vide Parker v. Patrick, 5 Term Re- 

 ports, 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 regulates 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 is the 31st Ehzabeth, cap. 12, which re- 

 quires that the sellers of horses in fairs and markets 

 shall be known to the toll-taker, or some othei 

 who will account for the sale; which, with the 

 price, is to be entered in the toll-book, and a note 

 given to the buyer, otherwise the contract is void : 

 and by the 4th section of this act, notwithstanding 

 the previous directions shall have been duly ob- 

 served, the owner's property in the horse is not 

 divested for six months after the sale, and he may 

 recover it by the order of a magistrate upon pay- 



