
    *Respublica against John Devore.
    Statutes formerly construed liberally, on a change of circumstances to receive a strict construction. Indictments for forcible entry and'detainer to be discouraged, unless there is ane evident force against the party in actual possession.
    Indictment for forcible entry and detainer of one mes-suage, 40 acres of arable land and 100 acres of woodland in Cumberland valley township, the freehold of John Tomlin-son.
    It appeared in evidence, that Tomlinson was in possession of the premises for eight or nine years, by having tenants thereon, who paid him rent. John Baker his last tenant, permitted Cornelius Devore, who claimed title therein, (the brother of the defendant) to come into possession in 1792. The defendant cultivated the land for his brother, but no one resided on it. He was asked by the prosecutor in the spring of 1793, to accompany him to the farm, which he accordingly did, and was there asked to give him possession. The defendant refused and said he could not, for the right was his brother’s. Tomlinson then laid his hand gently on him, and desired him again to deliver up the possession. The defendant stepped back, picked up a stick and bid him stand off. Thé prosecutor, who was admitted a witness merely to the force, swore that he felt no fears, but expected to be struck if he hadapressed him further.
    Cited in 50 Pa., 489; 1 Ash., 146.
    Approved in 116 Pa., 157, where the court said: “As was said in Res-publica v. Devore, indictments for forcible entry and detainer ought to be discouraged, unless there is evident force against the person in actual possession.”
    This case was argued by Mr. Hamilton for the prosecution, and by Mr. J. Woods for the defendant, and the following authorities were cited. 1 Hawk. Cap. 64, § 30, 25, 26, 27, 30, 38; 46. Cro. Jac. 199. 2 Bac. Ab. 563. Crompt. Just. Peace, 69, 70.
   By the court.

The statutes of forcible entry and detainer were made for very wise and good purposes, when the spirit of the times was very different from the present. The rights of property are more respected and regarded, and we are induced to flatter ourselves that the necessity of recurring to the laws only for the redress of private or public injuries, is now obvious to every one. Those statutes are still beneficial, but in a variety of instances, they have been prostituted and abused. Their provisions, which formerly were construed liberally, should now receive a strict construction from the change of circurhstances. (Vid. 2 Wils. 40, 41.) Proceedings under these acts of parliament should be discouraged, unless the party charged has been guilty of an evident force. These laws were made for the security of persons in the actual possession of lands, which can scarcely be said of the prosecutor in this present instance. They require as an indispensible ingredient in the offence, “force and arms and a strong *5021 hancL” The defendant was invited on the land *by -* the prosecutor, for the purpose of provoking him to some act of outrage, and all that he did, after receiving a supposed insult, was' to take up a stick, and desire him to stand off.. He neither struck nor attempted to strike, nor did his conduct excite any fears in Tomlinson. Baker was certainly guilty of an illegal and immoral act, in suffering Cornelius Devore to obtain a clandestine possession, against the trust reposed in him. But the proper remedy would have been a procedure under the landlord and tenant act, which meets this case in all its circumstances. — And we are of opinion, that the present mode of redress has been altogether misconceived.

Verdict for-the defendant.  