
    COUNTY OF AROOSTOOK.
    Inhab'ts of Macnawhoc Plantation versus Thompson & als.
    
    An action, properly commenced by authority merely of a statute, cannot be maintained, if at the time it comes on for trial, the statute authorizing it, has been repealed, without any exceptions as to actions pending.
    In deciding a question raised at the trial of an action, reference can only be had to the law as then existing, and no subsequent legislative Act can have any effect upon its determination.
    Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Appleton, J., presiding.
    Trespass, for cutting timber on lands in said plantation, reserved for public uses. The writ-was dated April 19, 1852, and alleged the trespass to have occurred in Dec. 1851, and in March and April, 1852. The general issue was pleaded.
    Chapter 196, <§> 7, of 1850, enacts, “ that the assessors of plantations, for election purposes, wherein lands reserved for public uses have been, or may be hereafter located, be and they hereby are authorized and required to protect the same from trespassers, and are empowered to prosecute any and all persons for trespassing therein, in the name of such plantation,” &c.
    The statute of 1852, c. 284, repealed this section and transferred the care of such lands to the Land Agent.
    This cause came on for trial at the September term of the Court in 1852, when the presiding Judge ordered a nonsuit, to which order the plaintiffs excepted.
    
      Burnham, for plaintiffs.
    
      Washburn and W. C. Crosby, for defendants.
   Tenney, J. —

This action was commenced in the name of the proper party, plaintiffs, by authority of statute 1850, c. 196, § 7. But when the action was tried, that section had been repealed, without any exception in reference to actions pending at the time of the repeal. No statute giving power to the inhabitants of plantations to commence and maintain suits for trespasses committed upon lots in such plantations reserved for public uses, was then in existence, and the non-suit was properly ordered. A statute was passed in 1853, ehapter 29, providing, that the statute of 1852 referred to, should not operate to defeat any suit or action, which was pending at the time of the passage thereof. But this can have no effect upon the question now presented.

Exceptions overruled.

Shepley, C. J., and Rice and Hathaway, J. J., concurred.  