J S.B

872, 11 L. K. A. o.'.T: with dam-, r the detenti i v. m •!.• 2:: X. 0. 523; Balle v. Hill, 13 Mo. 612; Hunt's Adm'r v. Martin's Adin'r, S Gratt. i Va.. le v. Conolly, 10 Ala. 271: and full costs, one cannot i afi dam- DOth hire and the ordinary wear and tear of the property sued for, as hire includes ordinary wear and tear; White v. R. Co., 90 Ala. 253, 7 South. 010. The verdhl and judgment must be such that a special remedy may be bad for a recovery of the goods detained, or a - i tion in value for each parcel in ca either of them cannot be returned; Haynes v. Crutchfleld, 7 Ala. 189; Bell v. Pharr, 7 Ala. 807; Goodman v. Lloyd. 2 Bumphr. [1 09; Glascock v. Hays, 4 Dana (Ky. Penny v. Davis. 3 B. Monr. (Ky.) 313. See 'Conversion; Tboveb; Replevin.