OOO RFX'OVEFvY OF STOLEN GOODS IN TROVER. 



which the defendant has innocently piu'chascd, although no steps have 

 been taken to bring the thief to justice. 



Goods which have been stolcji may he recovered in trover from the pur- 

 chaser of them in market overt, upon a conversion by him, subsequent to 

 the conviction of the felon, without any order of restitution having been 

 made; for the eflTcct of the 7 & 8 Geo, IV. c. 29, s. 57, is to revest the 

 property in stolen goods in the original owner upon conviction of the 

 felon {Sylvester \. Scattergood). And ^;<?r Lord CampMl C.J. : "It is 

 admitted that the sale in market overt would be no answer to the action 

 if an order of restitution had been made. We have now to determine 

 Avhat is the consequence of such an order being wanting. The plaintifl: 

 must rely on the statute, as at common law the property is permanently 

 changed by the sale in market overt, and looking at the statute we must 

 take it, that on the conviction of the thief the property revests. The 

 stat. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 11 restored the party to his goods, and that could 

 not be that he had merely a right to retake them under a writ of resti- 

 tution. The present act provides that ' the property shall be restored.' 

 I think both the statutes must be taken to have the same meaning, and 

 their object cannot be effectually carried out unless we suppose the right 

 of property to be restored to the owner on conviction, without any order 

 being made. At the same time, it is much to be regretted whenever an 

 order is not made so as to obviate the necessity of an action ; but it is 

 not a condition precedent, and this action is well brought. The 

 dictum of Bidler J. in Horwood v. Smith, that the property of the 

 plaintiff begins after the conviction of the felon, accords with our 

 view, and is decisive of the case." 



Douglas v. Corhett was a somewhat remarkable action for malicious 

 prosecution for sheepi-stecding. The plaintiff was a small farmer, and 

 in October, 1855, sold seven sheep. The purchaser took them to 

 Southam fair, where defendant, a sheep-farmer, claimed six as belong- 

 ing to a parcel of ten stolen from him in September, 1855. Plaintiff 

 said the whole seven were part of a lot of 17 he had had for months, 

 and he had still four of the lot left at his farm, which defendant might 

 see. Defendant went to plaintiff's farm with his shepherd and a police- 

 man, and his shepherd claimed one of the four as belonging to the 

 ten. The plaintiff came up while the shepherd was in the act of 

 leading it away, and after an angry discussion said it was one of 

 the 17 that he had bought at Banbury fair, and the defendant said 

 it was one of ten stolen from his field in September. Good,' a neigh- 

 bour of plaintiff's, on being appealed to by the plaintiff, said it was not 

 one of the same breed as the 17 he got from Banbury fair, and defend- 

 ant drove the four away. Plaintiff sued him in the County Court, and 



