
    Samuel Bowzey versus George W. Newbegin.
    Under the statute exempting from attachment “ one pair of working cattle,” a buU used for work is exempt, although the owner has no other cattle.
    • This was an action of trespass, against an officer, who, by virtue of an execution against the plaintiff, seized and sold a lull, which the plaintiff claims was exempt by the statute from attachment and seizure. The plaintiff owned no other cattle. He occasionally worked the bull in a short yoke to draw his firewood, and for other labor. The bull was also kept by plaintiff for other uses.
    .The only question was, whether the animal, under such circumstances, was intended to be exempted by the statute, under the designation of “ one pair of working cattle.”
    
      Wiswell, for the plaintiff.
    
      G. Peters, for tbe defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The.bull being used for work, is exempt from attachment under the statute. Defendant defaulted.  