60 



FAIRS AND MARKETS OVERT, ETC. 



The bond fide purchaser of stolen beasts sold ia market 

 overt cannot, in answer to a claim for them by the original 

 owner after the conviction of the thief, counterclaim for the 

 cost of their keep while the beasts were in his possession, 

 for they were his own property until, on the conviction, the 

 property revested in the original owner («'). 



This enactment applies to cases of false pretences as 

 well as felony, and the fact that the prisoner parted with 

 the goods to a bond fide pawnee will not disentitle the 

 original owner to the restitution of the goods {j). It also 

 applies to property received by a person knowing it to 

 have been stolen or obtained by false pretences. The 

 order of restitution is strictly limited to property identified 

 at the trial as being the subject of the charge ; it does not, 

 therefore, extend to property in the possession of innocent 

 third persons, which was not produced and identified at the 

 trial as being the subject of the indictment {k). 



Where stolen cattle were sold in market overt at about 

 10 o'clock in the morning, and later on in the day resold 

 likewise in market overt, both purchases being bond fide, it 

 was held, that, upon the conviction of the thief, the judge 

 had jurisdiction at the trial to order restitution to the right- 

 ful owner [l). 



And by the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 9, provision is made 

 upon conviction of the thief, and restitution of the goods, 

 for the payment to an innocent purchaser from the thief, 

 out of any moneys taken from the thief on his appre- 

 hension, of the price such purchaser has paid for the 

 stolen goods. 

 Order of police Under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, the metropolitan police 

 magistrate. magistrates have power to order that any goods stolen or 



fraudulently obtained be delivered up to the owner {m). 



Meplevinioi An action of replevin may be maintained for any un- 



unlawM lawful taking of goods, as upon a mistaken charge of felony, 



*'^ '°^- and is not confined to the case of goods distrained. Thus, 



where there was a dispute between the defendant L. and 



the plaintiff as to the ownership of a horse, one H., having 



obtained possession of it at the plaintiff's request, was 



charged by L. with stealing it. The defendant C. was a 



(j) Wallcer \. Matthews, 8 Q. B. C. 594; Reg. v. Smith, 12 Cox C C 



D. 109; 51 L. J., Q. B. 243; 46 597. 

 L. T., N. S. 915 ; 30 AV. R. 338. il) Reg. v. Soran, 6 Ir. R., C L 



{j) Reg. V. Stancliffe, 11 Cox, C. C. 293, C. C. E. 

 318. (m) See 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, ss. 27, 



(A) Reg. Y. Goldsmith, 12 Cox, C. 40. 



