Ambrose J:

This action was brought to recover damages for (1) trespass to land, (2) trespass to goods and (3) conversion. There was a fourth claim alternative to the second and third: this was for the return of the goods or their value, alleged to be $14,000, and damages for their deterioration and detention.

The material facts alleged in the statement of claim were these. The plaintiffs are furniture contractors, and were at all material times the owners of 200 cases of plate glass stored in their store at 65-U Bartley Road. On 26 December 1958 the defendants' servants or agents wrongfully and forcibly broke into the plaintiffs' store and removed 183 of those cases: and the defendants caused the police to go to the store and remove the remaining 17 cases. The plaintiffs by a letter dated 6 January 1959, demanded the return of the 200 cases. The defendants refused to comply with the demand and wrongfully detained the goods. The plaintiffs suffered loss and damage as a result.

The material facts alleged in the defence were these. At all material times the 200 cases of plate glass were the property of the defendants. They were cheated of the goods by one Tan Kiat Cheng on 22 and 24 December 1958. They made a report to the police on 24 December. On 26 December, 122 out of the 200 cases were found to be stored at 65-U Bartley Road. The defendants' manager and employees entered the store with the leave and license of the store-keeper. They removed 105 out of the 122 cases; these were taken over by the police, pending criminal proceedings against Tan Kiat Cheng; and the police removed the remaining 17 cases from the store. The defendants did not wrongfully detain the 200 cases. The plaintiffs did not suffer loss and damage.

In their reply the plaintiffs pleaded that they had no knowledge of the alleged cheating of the defendants by Tan Kiat Cheng and that the 200 cases of plate glass were bought by them in the usual course of business.

The first matter which I had to consider was whether the property in the 200 cases of plate glass passed from the defendants to Tan Kiat Cheng, the sole proprietor of Seng Hong Trading Co. The evidence of Quan Ying Lum, the defendants' manager, was as follows. On 20 December 1958, Tan Kiat Cheng ordered 79 cases of drawn sheet glass and 121 cases of window glass, agreeing to pay $14,788.73 in cash for the goods on delivery. The goods were duly delivered at No. 2 Padang Jeringau, the store of Seng Hong Trading Co. on 22 December 1958. Quan demanded payment, but Tan put him off, saying that the goods had to be checked by his clerk, that his clerk was not in, and that he would ring up Quan on the return of his clerk. On 23 December at 8 a.m. Quan went to see Tan. Tan told Quan that the goods had not been checked because the clerk had not yet returned. Quan waited for one hour. Tan said that he could not pay for the goods until they were checked. Quan returned to his shop and telephoned Tan several times, and was told on each occasion that the clerk had not come back. Finally, Tan told Quan to see him again on 24 December. Quan did so. Tan gave him a cheque. Quan refused to accept it, saying that payment was to be made in cash. Tan suggested that it was safer to take a cheque because of the risk of robbery. Quan took the cheque on the understanding that he would take back the goods if the cheque was not honoured. The bank did not accept the cheque because the amount written in figures differed from the amount written in words. Another cheque was obtained from Tan. This was dishonoured by the bank. Quan obtained the cheque from the bank and went to look for Tan but could not find him in his office. Quan went to the store of Seng Hong Trading Co. and found that the goods had been removed. He then went to the Central Police Station and made a report. On 26 December he went to Tan's office. There a young man told him that Tan had run away and that the glass was in Bartley Road.

The evidence of Q