
    Slack, vs Littlefield.
    
      Trover for Cotton. The proof of conversion ?elied on was, that defendant having lost cotton, and having cause to suspect that it was in plaintiff’s possession, obtained a search warrant and was in company with the constable who seized cotton, answering the description of defendant’s, in plaintiff’s possession. JYo proof of a demand on defendant, or that he had been in possession of the cotton seized. Verdict Jor depen-dant, and new trial refused.
    
    Trover for sixty pounds of picked cotton. The defen■dant alleged the loss of a quantity of picked cotton and' obtained a search warrant. The constable, with the defendant and' others in company, went to the plaintifPs house and found there about sixty pounds of picked cotton, which defendant claimed as his own, The cotton lost by defendant had been packed, and was taken from his factory on Tyger river, and the witnesses all agreed that the parcel found at plaintiff’s had the appearance of having been packed, and one witness swore that it smelt of the oil used in the factory,
    The plaintiff’s clerk (called by himself) proved that he, fb© witness, had a few nights before purchased twenty-four pounds Of this cotton from a negro, belonging to Mr. Partrain,. who had a written permit; but the permit was not produced. The plaintiff had purchased the balance in his absence, but from whom he did hot know. (The cotton appeared to be. all of the same quality.)
    There was no evidence that the cotton was ever in defendant’s possession, or that plaintiff had made a demand on him, and the facts relied on to prove the conversion, were that defendant had procured the warrant and was in company with the constable when he carried it away.
    Verdict for defendant — and motion fora new trial, on the grounds that property in the plaintiff and conversion by the defendant were sufficiently proved.
   The opinion of the court ivas delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt.

To maintain an action of trover, it is necessary that it should appear: 1st. That the plaintiff had either an absolute or special property in the goods which are the subject of the. action, at the time when they came into the possession of the defendant, who has converted them; and 2dly. that the defendant has been guilty of a wrongful conversion. From the evidence which this trial furnishes, I am inclined to think that nó right of property was established, in support of the plaintiff’s claim to the cotton, but on the contrary, that the presumption of right arising Tom possession merely, was rebutted by the evidence of his having procured a part from a negro, without showing at the same time that the negro was duly authorised to sell him the cotton.

To sustain the allegation of a conversion by the defendant, possession in the defendant himself must be proved. Bull, N. P. 44; 2d. Selwyn, 1303 — no such evidence was offered. The goods were taken possession of in virtue of « search warrant, obtained by the defendant, and not without probable cause that the plaintiff’s possession vvas unlawful. The court are unanimous in the opinion that a new trial should be refused.

Richardson, Nptt., -and Huger, Justices, concurred.  