
    Hall’s case.
    in a complaint under Stat. 1821, ch, 38, against one for cutting trees on land not his own, it is material to allege that it was without the consent of the owner.
    The record of a summary criminal process before a magistrate having been brought into this court by writ of certiorari, it appeared that the defendant had been charged with entering upon land not his own, and cutting and carrying away 100 trees, contrary to the form of the statute entitled, &ic. of which being convicted, he was .senten-. ced to pay a fine of forty dollars, and failing to pay it, was committed to prison.
    
      Allen, for the defendant,
    took exceptions to the record — that no close was described in the complaint; — that the owner was not named; — that it was not alleged that the trees were cut without the license or consent of the owner of the land, nor at any certain time; — and that the magistrate, in the amount of the fine, had exceeded his jurisdiction.
   The Court

said that without deciding upon the validity of all the objections, they were clearly of opinion that the want of an averment in the complaint that the trees were cut by the defendant, without the license or consent of the owner, was fatal. It was necessary ihat every material fact, constituting the guilt of the defendant, should be distinctly alleged. Little v. Thompson 3, Greenl. 228.  