
    G. & J. Chapman vs. Brawner.
    i S ' I ■ i In an action oi trespass 5 c/on a tvaei ofland called G D, the defea» dant took defence for a tract of land called A, on a part of which the aN (eged trespass was com mi tted — Held, that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for a trespass committed within the iines of the tract «ailed G Z),as the same was located by him on the lplots in the caused tahho* he had been in the possession • «ml cultivation of*the land on which the trespass was ' alleged to be com- ¡ jniited, claiming ' the same as part of CD, for upwards of 50 years, and it bad always been 3 called and reputed . as part' of that » •tract • *
    Appeal from Charles county court. An action of tres?pass guare clausum fregit, was brought by the appellants against the appellee, for entering their close called GrymPs Bitch, &c. I he pleas of non cul. aud freehold in the defendant, as part of a close called Adventure, were pleaded. issue was joined to the first pica, and a general replication put in to the second. The defendant demurred to the ¡replication, to which there was a joinder in demurrer. The county court overruled the demurrer, and directed the defendant to answer over to the replication. A general rejoinder was pleaded, and issue joined. The lands were located on plots returned under a warrant of resurvey, issued for that purpose. At the trial the plaintiffs gave in evidence, that fifty-two years ago the fence, located on the plots, was set up by the proprietor of the land, located on the plots, and called The Adventure, and that the fence has been uniformly kept up. They further gave evidence, that between 50 and 60 years ago their father, Person Chapman, had possession of the tract of land located on the plots called Gryme’s Bitch, and also of all that part of the tract called The Adventure, which lies on the west side u£ the fence; that P. Chapman, in his life-time, cultivated a»ijL • ' ¡ ' . «at wood on the land on the west side of the fence, and bad full and uninterrupted possession of the same, claimang it as his land; that on the death of P. Chapman, the land descended to the plaintiffs, who have since cultivated and cut wood on the same, and held possession thereof nn«il the trespass mentioned in the declaration was committed; and that all that part of The Adventure, which lies on the west side of the fence, has been called and reputed as part of Gn/me’s Bitch, and has been held and occupied by the plaintiffs, and their father, as part of that land. The plaintiffs then offered to prove, that the defendant had committed the trespass, alleged in the declaration, to the eastward of the black Line as located on the plots from letter B to letter C, the second line of Gryme’s Ditch, as located on the plots by the plaintiff, and on the west side of the fence. But the defendant objected to the admissibility of the evidence, and contended that the plaintiff's were not competent to give evidence of any trespass committed on that land; and the county court, {Ganit, 01». 3.) was of opinion, and so directed the jury, that the plaintiffs were only entitled to recover for a trespass committed by the defendant within the lines of the tract called Grym??s Ditch, as the same is located on the plots by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against them, this appeal was brought.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. .T, Buchanan, and Nicholson, J. by
    
      T. Buchanan, for the Appellant;
    and by
    
      G. Dorsey, for the Appellee.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMS».  