
    Shuter against Page.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    tn replevin the pfeadd«onmci ^ indhimseif" or a stranger.
    THIS was an action of - replevin. The defendant pleaded two pleas: 1. Non cepit, on which issue was-joined; 2. That ProPeriI! of the goods, &c. was in the. defendant, absque hoc, &c. with a verification.
    
      Anthon, for the plaintiff,
    moved'for'a rule that the defendant make his election as to one of the two pleas, and that the other-be struck out. He insisted that they were inconsistent and; could not be joined.
    The plea of non.cepit admits the. property to,be-in the plaintiff and no precedent was to be found in which the two pleas, were joined. He cited 1 Sellon’s Prac. 331. Gilb. on Rcplev. 181. Woodfall’s Tenant s’Law, 588. Barnes, 363,
    
      Sampson, contra,
    cited Pangburn., v. Palridge, (1 Johns. Rep. 140. 1 Chit. PI. 541. Barnes, 3f>4, 365, 341. 1 Sellon’s Prac. 299," 1 Tidd’s Prac. 60.8, 609. 2 Term Rep. 231..
   Per Curiam.

Courts have allowed, pleas in, many instances, apparently as inconsistent as thosedn the present case. In Stibbard v. Glover, (Barnes, 364.) non cepit, property in a stranger, and liberum tenementum were allowed to be pleaded together, in replevin. So, not guilty and justification may be pleaded in trespass. We se© no reason, for distinguishing the present casp, from those decided, The motion is denied.

Motion denied. 
      
      
        Com. Dig. Pleader, E. 2.
     