2. That there was no conversion in the defendant. The plaintiff by laying his goods where they obstructed the defendant from going to his chest, was in that respect a wrong-doer. The defendant had a right to remove the goods, so that thus far he was in no fault. Then as to the not returning the goods to the place where he found them;

if this were an action523of trespass, perhaps it might be a doubt; but he was clear it could not amount to a conversion.