
    Josiah Pierce versus Thomas Spring, and Others
    Trespass is the most suitable action, under the statute of 1795, c. 75, § 3, which gives treble damages for cutting down trees, Sz.c., pending an action for the recovery of the land on which such trees are growing.
    This was an action of trespass, under the statute of 1795, c. 75, <§> 3, which gives treble damages to the party aggrieved, against persons who cut down trees, &c., pending an action for recovering possession of lands on which such trees,. &c., are standing.
    After a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the action should have been debt, instead of trespass.
    
      Emery and Adams, in support of the motion,
    relied on the statute of 1793, c. 43, § 4, which enacts that pecuniary fines, or forfeitures, &c., shall and may be sued for and recovered by action of debt, &c.; and they held the word shall to be imperative, and that the word may, added, was not intended to weaken its force. 
    
    
      Longfellow, for the plaintiff.
    Debt lies only for a sum certain The case here was still in its nature a trespass, and the damages uncertain. The damages are first to be ascertained by a jury, and afterwards trebled. The statute of 1793 relates wholly to pecuniary fines and forfeitures, the amount of which is always fixed or limited by the law which imposes them. 
    
    
      
       See 1 Chitty on Pleading, 101.— Bac. Abr. title Debt, A.— Com. Dig. title Action upon Statute, E. — Strange, 828.
    
    
      
      
        Bac. Abr. ubi supra. — 7 Mass. Rep. 202, Bigelow vs. Cambridge and Concord Turnpike.
    
   Curia.

The statute giving the threefold damages, in this case, has not prescribed the form of action to be used for their recovery. There can be no objection to trespass, * which is, indeed, the most suitable one. The motion in arrest is overruled.

Judgment on the verdict.  