
    
      Pitman vs. Casey.
   ^jrC;.YJdOnl,

Tba '.í'espar-s compbr.ne'.l of, 6iff. r.rx.v vi'-im-i-.d n'-.wo ihr'-j yoors b'rfo'o v'->A, in --taíN-st of -.A o<> ■j’ >!->, asm] ten co 'tr-riro ío» í’;o n; ihe ac¡ñt.n„ n ¿'ill wo wiiWa «f,-.- -/caí,,!. T.íü act a'- ih.-;it;nioi3s is plr.j7::-.«i 5 — ■ a.ul moct c?,'".Jn that act is a brr ; :• í7>-^ nction ; for it aia o; ioundr.vi unoa (,:m first £*vrláí'as onfsy; not «pom aoj7 ccaún-f r. - of p-jiisoa ■■bn*; fterwards,aad vvitbin the thi’fe yc."3o Bafori ; i’M'tiim of tror;bn imoíatrántd for coir'fits;i2g y. ¡■.or..r7 ¿•■1 of it (’it; G-'st o:- ,rj-, Kiit'e l-a a re.,-.:yJ,r-iijg of tba r-í'..’- ? y tfe r. rty «..r 'Gad, Th;a i,Lc lavv JvCaas the poasesdoe; to have been ’.is all along; and oí course that Ü»e defendant w?s a violator of It every moment he continued bin possession.

Upon this opinion, (he plaintiff waa non-suited.  