
    GOLDBERG et al. v. SHAPIRO et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    October 4, 1900.)
    Conveksion—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    A judgment for conversion must be reversed where the record falls to .disclose any proof that the property was ever in the possession or under the control of defendant.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan.
    Action by Barret Goldberg and others against Anna Shapiro and •others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before BEEKMAH, P. J., and GIEGERI'CH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
    A. A. Joseph, for appellants.
    Leon Burkes (Isidor Wasservogel, of counsel), for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The action is to recover damages for the conversion of 21 suits of clothing and other articles. Judgment was rendered against the defendants for $185, damages, together with costs and extra costs. Although what seems to have been regarded as the value of such suits appears to have been taken into consideration by the justice in assessing the damages, the record fails to disclose any proof whatever that the same were ever in the possession or under the control of the defendants. Under these circumstances, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.  