
    Jean Besse v. Joseph Aycock et al.
    In a possessory action, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his possession of the premises at the time of the disturbance, and within one year from the day on which his petition was filed.
    APPEAL by plaintiff from the District Court of Terrebonne, Randall, J.
    
      W. Hall, for appellant.
    
      Beatty, for appellee.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Rost, J.

This is a possessoiy action; the judgment of the district court was in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to px-ove his possession of the premises, at the time of the disturbance, and within one year from the 20th of September, 1848, the day on which the petition was filed; so far from having done this, the vei-y first witness introduced by him px-oves that the plaintiff was in possession of the lot up to the 3d of July, 1847, the date of the coi-oxxer’s sale, under which the defendant’s claim, and that the defendant’s have been in possession ever since.

Another witness says, that the plaintiff filled up a ditch on the road, in front of the px-operty, after the coroner’s sale; this does not px'ove the possession alleged, especially after it is shown that the defendant’s themselves have kept the x’oad in repair.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.  