Conversion may be defined as any acts in relation to the goods of a person which constitutes an unjustifiable denial of his title to them. In the case of Charaf v. Sierra Leone Ports Authority, (1950-56); Marcus-Jones J. defined conversion as "...a willful and wrongful interference of goods or chattels so that any party entitled thereto is deprived of their possession." It is an act of deliberate dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's rights whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it. To be liable, the defendant need not intend to question or deny the plaintiff's rights. It is enough that his conduct is inconsistent with those rights. Conversion has been said to be similar to trespass in that it primarily protects possession rather than ownership of goods and as such, many acts of interference with goods will give rise to action or liability for both torts. However, conversion differs from trespass in that 1) In conversion, the interference must be intentional whereas in trespass, interference may be intentional or negligent. 2) Unlike trespass, in conversion it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have possession of the goods at the time of the interference. It is sufficient if he'd had an immediate right to possession. summarize this text in few sentences