
    [344] [*] WALKER against PIERSON.
    OS CEETIOBABI.
    In suit on the timber act, the demand should state the number of trees and the other requisites in the act. And the judgment should designate the penalties.
    
    Tlie action below was brought on the timber act, and founded on the following state of demand:
    Jabez Pierson, the plaintiff, comes into court and demands of the said Jacob Walker, as well for himself as for Daniel Williams, Henry Baldwin, and Aaron Baldwin, the sum of $40, for cutting, felling, boxing, boring, and otherwise destroying timber on lands of the aforesaid Jacob Pierson, Daniel Williams, Henry Baldwin, and Aaron Baldwin, on or about the tenth day of February last, past.
    May 28, 1808, JABEZ PIERSON.
    N. B. — This action is founded on the statute entitled, an act to prevent the waste of timber. JABEZ PIERSON.
    The cause was tried by the justice in the absence of the defendant, he not appearing; and judgment in the following form entered: I gave judgment for the plaintiff' thirty-two dollars debt.
    [f] Several objections were taken against the record below'; those on which the court decided the cause were, that the state of demand did not contain sufficient certainty, nor was judgment correctly entered.
    
      
       P. ante, Jf28; post, 850.
      
    
   By THE Court.

The state of demand is insufficient; although the action is brought for a penalty tinder the timber act, yet no specific offence is set out, no particular number of trees charged to be cut, boxed, bored, &e., but cutting, &c., timber; the state of demand also ought to charge the cutting to be without the leave or permission of the owner of the land, and the judgment ought to set out the number of penalties the defendant was convicted of, and designate them.

Judgment reversed.  