
    Peter Ward against Abraham Folly.
    oh certiorari.
    THIS was an action between the same parties for a subsequent trespass. The same facts appeared as in the preceding case, except that the place where the fence was thrown down and the stones and ground dug up and carted away, was altogether beyond the limits of the old and new parts of the road, and upon the premises of the plaintiff.
    
    
      Halsey for plaintiff. Attorney General for defendant.
   Southard J.

remarked. An overseer has no right to enter on lands adjoining the road, to the injury of the owner, for any purposes except those specified in the statute, Whether this overseer had trespassed for other purposes, and the extent of the trespass, were proper subjects for the jury. There is nothing in the case to shew that they erred. On the contrary, so far as the return of the justice is to be regarded, we have full evidence that they decided correctly. The overseer had no right to throw down the plaintiff’s fence ; to carry away his rails and stones and dig up his ground, lying beyond the limits of the road, without his permission. The verdict and judgment are right.

By the court:

Let the judgment be affirmed. 
      
      
         Winter vs. Peterson, 4 Zab. 524. Davidson vs. Schenck, 2 Vr. 174. Wuesthoff vs. Seymour, 7 C. E. Gr. 70. See Hoboken, &c. Co., vs. Kerrigan, 2 Vr. 13.
      
     