
    Wm. Hobson v. James Perry.
    A maater w!l0 may mam-tou!°r
    0fUmo)sbi-ct!" seizure and
    iuvnotiawM a lrafll!
    
      At Union—Spring Term, 1833.
    
      Sum. pro. in trespass for shooting a mare. It appeared that the mare, although fed by the plaintiff, and used by him as his other horses, was in fact owned by his slave. She broke into the defendant’s field, theritwas enclosed by a lawful fence or not, did appear) and he shot her.
   On appeal to this Court, it was held, 1. That possession of the plaintm was sufficient to enable to maintain this action againsta mere trespasser: that the fact of ownership by a slave is not ipso facto, a feiture under the Act of 1740, P. L. 171-2; but the forfeiture under that Act, is not complete, until seizure and condemnation. 2. that the act of 1827, p. 77, which declares what shall be a lawful fence, does not authorize the killing of a horse, which breaks into a field so enclosed.  