In Court, as to the principle on which compensation should be awarded. Under 2 and 3 Vict., cap. 71, secs. 27, 28, 29, Metropolitan Police Magistrates have generally adopted the tests given by the Pawnbrokers' Act, i.e., "the conduct of the owner," and "the other circumstances of the case." Thus they have usually granted partial compensation to the pawnee or vendee when the owner has negligently entrusted his property to unworthy persons, and complete, when the owner has invited robbery by drunkenness or vice, provided always that the Pawnbroker or other purchaser has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the pawnor's misconduct. The Act now under notice has been very generally applied in the same manner. Thus, in April, 1873, the Recorder of Canterbury awarded the whole amount advanced upon a stolen chattel. October, 1873, at Chelmsford, Pawnbrokers who had made all proper inquiries of the pawner, and had given reasonable facilities to the police, received the full amount of their advances. In the same month, the Courts of Quarter Sessions at Bradford, Yorkshire, and at Exeter, allowed from half to the whole of advances made by Pawnbrokers who had acted properly, while they disallowed claims by others who had lent money negligently, and in disregard of suspicious circumstances. In November, 1874, the present Recorder of London dealt with a number of claims arising out of the conviction of a man ostensibly in respectable business, but who, getting into difficulties, had purchased goods in large quantities, pledging them shortly afterwards. Sir Thomas Chambers awarded half their advances to those who had required the production of invoices and other indicia of lawful trading, but he refused every claim in which these precautions had been neglected. Mr. Knox, at Marlborough-street, Mr. D'Eyncourt, at Marylebone, and several Aldermen at the Mansion-house and Guildhall Police-courts, have granted compensation in similar measure. And though in April, 1875, Mr. W. Cooke said, "That when the owner had done no act to render himself a party to the pawning, he should have his property restored," the bench has generally inclined to the rule laid down by Mr. Headlam, the Manchester stipendiary, who, in January, 1875, allowed half the advance when both Pawnbroker and real owner had acted properly. In Reg. v. Rumer (tried October, 1876), where the prisoner had pledged pictures fraudulently obtained from a person who had left his business in charge of a boy, from whom the goods were obtained, the Recorder of Liverpool refused to order restitution, saying, "he thought the prosecutor should redeem the pictures." In Reg. v. Parsonby (October, 1876), the Recorder of Southampton ordered restitution on payment of the amount advanced by the Pawnbroker, the position and appearance of the prisoner having been such as to disarm suspicion. In May, 1877, the magistrates of Exeter made several orders of restitution on payment of advances, but refused it where the chief-constable reported unfavourably on the Pawnbroker's conduct. In April, 1877, the stipendiary magistrate at Sheffield made an order of restitution conditional on payment of half the amount advanced by the Pawnbrokers to the prisoner, a draper's town traveller, who had pledged goods obtained from his employer on the pretext that he had obtained orders for them from customers on whom he called. These powers, however, are exercisable only when the pledge is within the Act. They do not extend to transactions over £10. In Reg. v. Dysart, tried at the Central Criminal Court in September, 1876, application was made by a Pawnbroker for compensation upon giving up a pledge on which £15 had been advanced. The Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney) refused the application, holding that the Act was confined to transactions not exceeding £10, and that consequently he had no power to make any but an unconditional order of restitution. In Reg. v. Chambeau, Mr. Edlin, Q.C., Assistant-Judge at Middlesex, made an order upon a pledgee, not a Pawnbroker, directing him to restore, without compensation, property pledged for more than £10, but awarded him compensation under 33 and 34 Vict., c. 23 (the Abolition of Forfeiture Act). The same learned Judge made a similar order upon a Pawnbroker, for the restitution of a pledge of similar amount, on the ground that the 30th section of the Pawnbrokers' Act did not apply, but directed that the moneys-about £15-taken from the prisoner on his apprehension, should be paid to the pledgee, as partial compensation for the loss he had sustained. It is not obligatory on the owner of property unlawfully pledged, to seek its restitution by proceedings under the Pawnbrokers' Act. He may refrain from making any application to any Criminal Court, and, relying on his Common Law rights, may recover his property or its value by an action in the County or Superior Court (a). Special powers of arrest and detention, and also special rights to compensation, are given by sec. 34 of the Pawnbrokers' Act, which provides that if a person offers a pledge to a Pawnbroker, being unable or refusing to give a satisfactory account of the means by which he became possessed of the article (b), or wilfully giving false information to the Pawnbroker as to the ownership of the pawn, or the owner's, or his own name and address (c), or attempting to redeem a pledge without colour of title thereto (d). And if a Pawnbroker reasonably suspects that (a) Singer Manufacturing Company v. Clark, L.R. 5 Ex. 37, 49 L.J. 224 Ex., 41 L.T. N.S. 591, 28 W.R. 170. (b) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 34, sub-sec. 1. any article offered in pledge has been stolen or otherwise illegally or clandestinely obtained, the Pawnbroker may seize and detain the person, or the article, or either of them, and deliver them, or either of them, as soon as may be into the custody of a constable, to be conveyed as soon as may be before a Justice, to be dealt with according to law. Such Justice may, on request by the Pawnbroker, grant him a certificate for such compensation as he may deem reasonable, for his expenses, trouble, and loss of time, in and about the seizure, detention, and delivery (a). The sum mentioned in the certificate is payable in the same manner as sums payable to prosecutors and witnesses under 7 Geo. 4, cap. 64, and its amending Acts, viz., by drafts drawn by the proper officer, upon the County Treasurer, who is authorized and required to pay the sums certified for on sight of the order (b). A Pawnbroker may also seize and detain any person who utters, produces, shows, or offers to him a pawn-ticket which he reasonably suspects to have been counterfeited, forged or altered, and deliver such person into the custody of a constable. He may also deal with the ticket in like manner (c). Pawnbrokers commencing business after Dec. 31, 1872, can only obtain a licence to carry on business, on production and under the authority of a magisterial certificate under the Act (d). But it will not be necessary for any (a) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 34. (b) 7 Geo. 4, cap. 64, sec. 24. For similar powers of compensating persons active in apprehending prisoners convicted on indictment for larceny, see 7 Geo. 4, cap. 64, sec. 28; on summary conviction for the same offence, see 18 and 19 Vict., cap. 126, sec. 14; and for embezzlement, see 31 & 32 Vict., cap. 116, sec. 2. (c) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 49. A pawn-ticket is an accountable receipt, forgery or uttering whereof is punishable under 11 Geo. 4, cap. 66, or 24 & 25 Vict., cap. 98, sec. 10. Reg. v. Fitchie, 1 D. & B., C.C. 175, 3 Jur. N.S. 419, 26 L.J., 90 M.C. (d) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 39. Post, cap. X., THE STATUTORY LIABILITIES OF THE PAWNEE. person who was at that time a licensed Pawnbroker, or for his executors, administrators, assigns, or successors, to obtain such a certificate. There has been no decision of a Superior Court as to the extent of the privilege thus conferred. But in Reg. v. Bate (a), Sir Thomas Henry, at Bowstreet, held that this section conferred a personal right upon all Pawnbrokers then in business, and in effect, vouched them as fit and proper to receive a licence. A case for the Superior Court was offered by the magistrate, but declined by the Solicitor for the Inland Revenue Department, who had instituted the prosecution. The decision was afterwards acted upon when a Pawnbroker removed from the premises he had occupied before the passing of the Act; when the premises of another were taken for public improvements; and when a third, having temporarily retired from business early in 1873, resumed it within a year or two afterwards (b). If a Pawnbroker commits any offence against the Pawnbrokers' Act, 1872, in any contract made by him as a Pawnbroker (other than an offence against the licensing sections of the Act), such contract shall not be void by reason only of that offence, nor shall he thereby forfeit his right of lien, or his right to the pledge, loans, and profit, except when delivery of the pledge is ordered by any competent Court (c). Under the repealed Acts, a Pawnbroker who divided one pledge of large amount into several pledges under £10, was held to have lost all right to the pledge and his advances thereon (d). In another case, the (a) Before Sir Thomas Henry, at Bow Street, in Oct., 1874. (b) See also Reg. v. Justices of Exeter, exparte Maren, L.R. 8 Q.B. 235, 42 L.J. 35 M.C., 27 L.T. N.S. 847, 21 W.R. 329, decided on a similar point under the Licensing Act, 35 and 36 Vict., cap. 94, secs. 45, 46. (c) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 51. d) Fergusson v. Norman, 5 Bing. N.C. 76, 6 Scott 794, 1 Dru. 411, 3 Jur. 10. |