Moore v. Baylies — 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 79

Majority

p. 79

Elizabeth A Moore, Resp’t, v. John Baylies, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department

Filed May 12, 1890.)

Headnote

1. Trespass. — Damages mat include goods taken.

Where defendant made an unlawful entry on plaintiff’s premises for the

p. 80

purpose of removing property claimed to belong to his intestate, and in doing so carried away property belonging to plaintiff, in an action for trespass plaintiff may recover for the value of the property so taken in addition to the damages for wrongful entry.

■ 2. Same. — Witness.—Evidence of value.

Any person who knows the value of personal property may give an opinion on the subject.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a veiv diet for $450 directed by the court.

Action to recover damages for trespass committed by defendant upon the premises of plaintiff, and carrying away certain property of plaintiff. The answer alleged that the property belonged to defendant’s sister, of whose estate he was administrator, and that they were taken by him in that capacity.

The court directed a verdict for the trespass, and submitted the question of title to the property and the assessment of damages, to the jury.

Benj. W. Downing, for app’lt; Wm. JR. De Puy (W. T B. Mil lilcm, of counsel), for resp’t.

The appeal in this case is destitute of merit.

The defendant made a wrongful entry upon the premises of the plaintiff for the purpose of taking some articles of personal property which he claimed belonged to his intestate. Such unjustifiable entry was sufficient to sustain the action and as the plaintiff claimed that some of the articles carried away by the defendant belonged to her, it was left to the jury to find whether the claim was well-founded, and if such was the finding, then the jury was permitted to enhance the damages by including the value of such property so wrongfully appropriated in the verdict to be rendered.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the amount of the verdict indicates that the plaintiff was allowed something for personal property taken in addition to the damages for the wrongful entry. The evidence justifies such a verdict, and the charge was without fault.

The objection to the testimony of witnesses respecting the value of the articles taken was not well-founded; any person who knows the value of personal property may give an opinion on the subject.

The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.