
    Hogmire, et al. vs. M‘Coy.
    In an action of trespass q a f the plaintiff off red to prove that lie wa* m possession of the land on which the trespass was alleged to havebeen committed, and that the deiendont committed the trespass complain* ed of on the land so in the possession of the plaintiff, at the place by him located on the plots in the cause — Held, that such evidence was admissible.
    The plaintiff prosed by a wit* ncs> that he was prese ni when the land, on which tlie trespass was al* legt <1 to have been committed, v. as oiijyinaiiy located or taken up, and that it was then located, as it now is, on the plots— Held, that the evi* dynce was adnuhr úibíe to prove the original K-gijaníus' nod location ef the tract of land,
    Ai’PEALfrom Washington County Court. The appellants brought an action of trespass q. c. f. against the appellee. The general issue was pleaded, and plots were returned.
    1. At the trial the plaintiffs offered to ¡trove, by a Competent witness, that they were in possession of the tract of land called Long Timber, mentioned in the declaration, and on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed, as located on the plots by the plaintiffs; and that the defendant committed the trespass mentioned in the declaration, on the land so in possession of the plaintiffs, al the place located by them on the plots. This testimony the county court, (Clagett, Ch. J.) refused to admit to be given to the jury. The plaintiffs excepted.
    S. The plaintiffs also offered to prove, by a competent ■witness, that he, the witness, was present when the tract of land called Long 'Timber was originally located or taken up, and that the tract was then located, as now loeated by the plaintiffs on the plots, and then prayed the court to direct the jury, that this testimony was admissible to prove the original beginning and location of the land, in order to support the plaintiffs’ action. But the county court refused to admit the testimony* The plaintiffs excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against them, they prosecuted this appeal.
    
      Hughes, for the Appellants.
    
      T. Buchanan, Brooke and Lawrence, for the Appellee.'
   The Court

dissented from the opinions expressed by* the county court in both of the bills of exceptions.

JUDGMENT reversed*  