Does the respondent have exclusive possession of the safe of the applicant's personal property?

Thus, when the applicant was removed from the home by the police and was precluded from returning, his personal property including his safe (if it was still there) would then have been in the respondent’s sole control. It follows that, with no change to the voluntary nature of her possession (at that point), a bailment relationship was created. In Hynes v. Hynes, [1995] N.J. No. 8 (Nfld. Prov. Ct. (Sm. Cl. Div.)) the defendant husband who “threw” the plaintiff wife out of the home was found to be a bailee of her personal property. This would accord with the reasonable expectations of the parties. The defendant there and the respondent here had a history of protecting the bailor’s chattels. As noted in TLB at pages 163 and 164 and the cases already cited, lack of access to or control of the goods by the bailor supports a finding of bailment, as does a transfer of exclusive possession of the goods to the bailee (TLB at page 40).