(i) His interest in retaining possession of the chattel; (ii) His interest in the physical condition of the chattel; and (iii) His interest in protecting the chattel against intermeddling. Trespass to Chattels may take various forms such as destroying, damaging, or merely using goods, or wrongfully moving them from one place to another: READ: Sheldrick v. Abey (1793) 170 ER 278; Heyden v. Smith (1610) 123 ER 970; Fouldes v. Willoughby (1841) 151 ER 1153; Pefods Wines Pty Ltd v. Elliot (1946) 74 CLR 204. Like other forms of trespass, trespass to chattels is actionable per se , ie., without proof of actual damage. Like trespass to land, trespass to chattels protects possession rather than ownership. The Plaintiff in an action for trespass to a chattel must have had actual possession of it at the time of the interference by the defendant:
98 :READ Ward V. Macauley (1791) 100 ER 1135; Keenan Bros Ltd V. CIE (1962) 97 I LTR 54 Woodson V. Nawton (1727) 93 ER 842; Wilson V. Barker (1833) 110 ER 587. Conversion Is a positive and intentional act of interferences with a person's legal possession or right to the immediate possession of goods. As with detinue, the tort of conversion does not stem from the writ of trespass and therefore does not require that the legal injury result directly from the Defendant's conduct. As a practical matter, the legal wrongs sanctioned by detinue and conversion
