The act of March 12th, 1845, entitled "An act to regulate the Judicial Courts, and the practice thereof," does not require a Bond to be filed previous to the issuing of a Writ of Error; such Bond need only be filed when designed to operate as a supersedeas.

If goods or chattels are delivered to a bailee for hire, and he convert them to his own use, assumpsit will lie to recover their value.

The act of March 4th, 1845, respecting appeals from a Justice of the Peace, does not apply to cases appealed before the passage of the act.

THIS is a WRIT OF ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of TRUMBULL County.

The writ was issued under the provisions of the act of March 12th, 1845, entitled "an act to regulate the judicial courts, and the practice thereof."

On the circuit a motion was made to quash the writ, for the reason that, previously to the issuing of the same, no bond had been filed with the clerk, by the plaintiff in error to the adverse

Barker v. Cory.

Dec. Term,

IN BANK. party, conditioned to prosecute the writ, pay costs, &c., as provided for in the 6th section of said act. To give a construction to this section, was the object in reserving this case.

1846.

To dispose of the case finally, the errors assigned were also reserved for decision here. They are

First That the action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace in form, ex delicto, and that the declaration in the Court of Common Pleas was in assumpsit.

Second: That the Court below erred in rendering judgment against the defendant below, for the costs accruing against him in that Court.

Wade & Ranney, for Plaintiff in error.

Tod, Hoffman & Hutchins, for Defendant in error.

READ, J. The object of the 6th section of the act of March 12th, 1845, entitled "an act to regulate the judicial courts, and the practice thereof," was to prevent writs of error to issue without the allowance of a Judge, as a matter of course. The reason of this change in the old law was, that, by this act, appeals were cut off which authorized a second jury trial, and writs of error substituted; and therefore all restraint upon their being issued was taken away. It was not intended by this act to impose a new condition upon a party seeking a writ of error, but to remove a restraint. But it is contended, on the part of counsel for the defendant, that, by this act, no writ of error can issue, unless the party suing it out shall give bond, with good and sufficient security to the adverse party, to prosecute the writ to effect, and pay all costs in error. Such a construction is opposed to the object of the act, and will not be adopted by the Court, unless compelled by its express terms.

That part of the 6th section relied upon by counsel for the defendant, reads as follows:

"The clerk issuing such writ of error shall, in all cases, take good and sufficient bond and security to the adverse party,