
    DIETZ v. DIETZ.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 21, 1912.)
    Husband and Wife (§ 145*)—Conversion by Husband of Wife’s Property —Evidence.
    A wife, who testified that she owned diamonds, that her husband wished to borrow money of a third person and asked her to pawn them to secure the loan, and that after some dispute she pawned them, because she could not help herself, and who failed to prove the value of the diamonds, did not show a cause of action against her husband for the conversion of the diamonds.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent Dig. §§ 554, 555; Dec. Dig. g 145.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
    Action by Pauline Dietz against Henry Dietz. Prom a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
    Argued June term, 1912, before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and BI-JUR, JJ.
    S. C. Sugarman, of New York City, for appellant.
    Jacob Marx, of New York City, for respondent.
   SEABURY, J.

This is an action by a wife against her husband to recover the value of two diamonds alleged to have been converted by the defendant. Whether the diamonds were the property of the plaintiff or defendant was the subject of dispute. The plaintiff testified that she owned the diamonds, and that her husband wished to loan one Schaffer $100, and asked her to pawn the diamonds for that purpose. She says that she “raised Cain,” and “after he got through fighting with me he asked me to go down and pawn them for him, which I done. I couldn’t help myself, and I done it.” Not only was there an absence of evidence as to the value of the diamonds, but the facts proved did not establish a cause of action for conversion.

Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed, without costs to either party. All concur.  