
    The State vs. Tom. Cockfield.
    
      Trespass on Land — Misdemeanor.
    It is not necessary to constitute a misdemeanor under the Act of 1866 by “entry on the enclo>ed or unenclosed lands of another,’’ after notice prohibiting the same, that the entry should be made under claim of title. The words of the Act are used in their ordinary acceptation.
    BEFORE T. B. LOGAN, ESQUIRE, DISTRICT JUDGE, ■WILLIAMSBURG.
    The report of the District Judge is as follows:
    “ This was an indictment under the seventh section of an Act to amend the Criminal Law, passed in 1866, for an entry after notice upon the lands of Washington Cockfield. Several witnesses proved that notice had been given at different times by the owner of the premises and his tenant, prohibiting the defendant from entering upon the lands of the owner, and that the defendant disregarded the notices and persisted in frequently visiting the place. It was proved that the defendant had a sister who was in the employ of Washington Cockfield, and that he had visited her on several occasions when she was unwell. I instructed the jury that the seventh section of the Act of 1866 contemplates an entry on the enclosed or unenclosed lands of another, after due notice, and if they believed that the defendant had received notice prohibiting his entry upon the lands of the prosecutor, and after such notice he had gone upon the premises, they should find him guilty. The jury 'returned a verdict of guilty; the defendant now gives notice of appeal on the following grounds:
    
      “1st. Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in bolding that merely going upon a man’s land after notice not to go, constitutes the misdemeanor intended to be created by the seventh section of the Act of 1866 ; whereas it is respectfully submitted that the Legislature in using the word ‘ enter,’intended that it should receive its technical interpretation.
    “2d. Because the Act of 1866 was intended to amend the Act of 1865, and to provide for a condition of things expected after the first January, 1867, to wit, the taking possession by freedmen of unoccupied negro houses, or the refusal to deliver possession after notice not to enter upon the lands.
    “ Sd. Because the proof showed that the defendant went on the lands of the prosecutor for the purpose of visiting his sister who was sick, and remained there only a part of the night on some three or four occasions, and that he had no intention of remaining there or taking possession of any of the lands of the prosecutor.
    “ 4th. Because the indictment is not framed in the words of the Act, inasmuch as it should have been charged that the entry was made on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of the owner, whereas the indictment contains no such allegation.
    “5th. Because, according to the proof, the defendant did not commit a misdemeanor, had no criminal intention, and should have been acquitted.
    “ The fourth ground of appeal was simply alluded to at the'opening of the trial; counsel did not press its cousidertion upon the Court.
    
      “The objection, however, was not considered material, as it was proved on the trial that defendant had frequently entered after notice upon both the inclosed and uninclosed lands of the prosecutor.”
    
      Porter, for the motion.
    This indictment was brought under the seventh clause of the Act to amend the Criminal Law, A. A. 1866, p. 406. “Every entry on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting the same, shall be deemed a misdemeanor.”
    The word entry used in the Act has a technical signification, and must receive such construction. Burrill, in his Law Dictionary, defines entry to be “ the actual taking possession of the lands or tenement by entering 'into and setting foot upon the same.” Entry is also “an extrajudicial and summary remedy against certain species of injury by-ouster, used by the legal owner when another person who has no right has previously taken possession of lands and tenements.” 8 Black Com. 174.
    The Act of 1866 amends the Act of 1865, and a reference to that Act will show what was intended to be remedied by the Legislature, and what construction the word enter should receive.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DuNKIN, C. J.

By the Act of December, 1866, (13 Stat. 406.) “Every entry on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant, prohibiting the same, shall be deemed a misdemeanor.” The comprehensive language of the enactment will not permit the Court to suppose that it was intended to have any other than the ordinary acceptation. If, as was supposed in the argument, the law was only directed against those who entered claiming title, restrictive terms would obviously have been applied. Such was the instruction of the presiding Judge. The matters urged in the remaining grounds of appeal were circumstances of extenuation, proper for consideration in the sentence to be imposed, but would not warrant the interference of this Court.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw and Ietglis, A. JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  