New Britain herald., 1924-04-09

to the attachment creditor for the
 value Of the property. If he went
 ahead and sold the property and il l.bclonged to Lillian Wells he would be
 liable to her for the conversion Of the property.
 The attachment suit was against
 Agnes Costello only and Lillian Wells was not a party.
 He decided to retain possession and of course had to advertise the proper
 ty for sale in proper legal form and sell it and make due return to the court of his doings.
 1 Miss Wells promptly brought suit : against the sheriff and the surety on ! his bond for conversion of the lions and for damages because in taking away three of the lions the team work" of tho five lions was destroyed and she was unable to obtain further bookings and was therefore greatly Camaged. in addition 10 losing three of her lions.
 l.. eases of this sort the parties nave the right to have the issues tried
 "y jury. \ .ury Of twelve men.
 good and true" from :he community
 was selected t1 try the case. The evidence disclosed that Agnes
 Costello had owned the lions but that
 about three years prcvlous to the levy
 liliitu Wells lad bought them from
 ner ir the stat Of TeNah As this was a rcNas transaction the law of that statr governed and the New England sheriff vas bound@to snow what the law f Texas WcS. finder that law ownership of chat,ci property carried wiih it the ossession and as Lillian Wet claimed she had actually bought the lions before valid levy was made sch urchase carried with it the pos seSsiol' even though she Had never been near the lions. The plaintiff further produced bill of sale dated three years previous Co May 9th, 1921, but which the evidence showed wa actually executed May ,'h, 1921.
 In a jury trial the ilN is the iude, Of the facts under instruction of the court as to the law. !n come iuris- dictions the court may comment on the facts, but if it n 'ho slightest le- gree inrades the province of the jury In deciding what the facts are il is | error aad the 'as@ will 5c re- l Nersed by the supreme co1rt.
 The jury. aft"r tue dciihcration, l CT of the lions on May ;ih, 1921. an! l rna>Icd q Vcrlicr against the sheriff | and his surety fo" over fourteen hun | lred dollars for the conversion of ;lie ! three lions and for damages on ac- l cunt of loss Of "booEings."
 The sheriff and his surety appealed ! ,o the supreme court from the ludg- 1 ncnt Of the lower court hllt the su- prem" court affirmed the decision ana | tho sheriff had 10 pay the judgment ! with costs.
 Tn" supreme court sail that m order ,u make a valid attach'l,u ut icvy he sh, rir must take tine property nto his possession ci.ncr { 'tnal!v or 'on@trucineig by plgc!aI q keeper m charge. or by some other act which lncquivocally places the property in ifs posgossion;" and that the attach- flcnt took cffect from the time when he sheriff took those lions into his and the placing of them n tho custody of a keeper constituted nch taking or th3m into his posses ion"
 "Af'cr May sth tho sncriff did not Ittompt to maintnin actual or con possession of tne aninais un- ai he placed keeper in charge on aa. lith. tntil that day he did not scrcirc due diligence To prevent the troperty from gOins out of his con- rol IT he had really meant to take ,o o-sospion on May 6th he evidently bandoned possession on May 1th .lrn he suffered the lions 10 go back
 tn the custody Of Agnes Costello. no officer having abandoned tho os1caioa nf tho property the lien pon them was nonc and they were ut Of inc custody Of the law"
 "It is of the very essence Of a lien