
    Martin v. Oslin.
    The action being for the conversion of a mule and for the recovery of hire, a verdict finding a specific sum with interest thereon from a date preceding the time of conversion, is contrary to law, both because interest as such is not recoverable in the action, and if it were recoverable, the accrual thereof would begin with the conversion and not before. Irrespective of other grounds of the motion, the court was warranted in granting a new trial for this cause; and inasmuch as the case, on its substantial merits, is by no means clear in behalf of the plaintiff below, the judgment granting a new trial is affirmed.
    July 30, 1894.
    Trover. Before Judge Wellborn. Hall superior court. July term, 1893.
    F. M. Johnson, W. F. Findley and Glenn & Maddox, for plaintiff.
    H. H. Perry and H. H. Dean, for defendants.
   Judgment affirmed.  