Welsh v. Warrington

<p>Appeal, No. 194, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, No. 3374, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Frank C.Welsh v. Joseph Warrington.</p> <p>Trespass for alleged wrongful conversion of goods. Before Finlettbr, P. J.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s statement was as follows :</p> <p>The plaintiff heretofore, to wit: on March 31, 1902, to wit: at the county aforesaid,.was lawfully possessed as of his own property of certain goods and chattels, to wit: One eighteen-foot beveled glass rosewood cigar case with Tennessee marble base, one fifteen foot wall cigar case with French plate door and shelving under same, and one large French plate bevel mirror four feet by nine feet with mahogany imitation frame, being together of the value of $500.</p> <p>That the said goods and chattels were taken possession of by the said defendant under the following circumstances: The plaintiff had previously leased the said goods and chattels to one John P. Brown, who was a tenant of the defendant of a store situate No. 1,214 North Eleventh street in the city of Philadelphia in which store the said goods and chattels were taken possession of by the said defendant on March 31, 1902, under an alleged claim of damages by defendant against the said John P. Brown, and with which plaintiff and the said goods and chattels were in no way connected or liable for.</p> <p>That on March 31, 1902, the plaintiff desiring to have again' and remove his said goods and chattels, the possession to which he avers he was then legally entitled, requested the defendant who had the custody of and who had taken possession of the same, to deliver them up to him, but the said defendant well knowing the same to be plaintiff’s property refused to give them to plaintiff and on said March 31, 1902, at Philadelphia aforesaid, fraudulently converted the same to his own use. To the damage of said plaintiff of $500 with interest thereon from March 31, 1902, which he avers is justly due and owing to him from the defendant.</p> <p>At the trial plaintiff testified without contradiction that the goods were worth $300. The evidence as to the description and identity of the property was confusing and uncertain. There was some testimony that plaintiff had notice of the distress several days before the sale.</p> <p>The court charged “You will render a verdict for the value of the specific articles which in your estimation the evidence established to be the property of the plaintiff.”</p> <p>Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $318. Defendant appealed.</p> <p>Error assigned was the charge of the court, quoting it.</p>