¶1 The Court told the jury, that if the plaintiff assented to the sale of his interest in the seines, or either of them, then he could not recover, in this action, for a conversion of that property, which he had assented should be sold. The jury have by their verdict negatived any assent to the sale of the plaintiff’s interest in the seines. The case then, it seems, turned altogether upon the ground, whether the defendant had destroyed the seines, or whether he had rendered them useless by use, before the action was brought. The original owners had been fishing as partners, one or two years before the sale to the plaintiff by Fagan. But whether they had used either of these two seines during that time, does not appear in the case. But the evidence does shew that the defendant had in fact used these seines in fishing, for three springs, from the sale to him' up to the bringing of the action. There was, therefore, evidence to be left to the jury, as to the destruction of the seines by the defendant, or as to his rendering them useless by use. The law, we think, was correctly stated to the jury by the Court. Lucas v. Wasson, 3 Dev. 398.
¶2 Pan CURIAM. Judgment reversed.