
    Wells against Howell.
    Every unwarrantable entry on the land of another, whether it be enclosed or not, is a trespass.
    As, where the defendant’s cattle entered the uninclosed field of the plaintiff, and destroyed the grass, &c. it not appearing that there was any regulation of the town as to fences, or as to cattle running at large: Held, that the defend* ant was liable for the damage in an action of trespass.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, to a Justice’s Court. Howell sued Wells before the Justice, and declared against him, for that his ( Wells'1) horse had entered the plaintiff’s field, and destroyed the grass, &c. there, to his damage of ten dollars.
    
      Wells pleaded, that there was no fence around the field, when the damage was done, and admitted the trespass and the amount of damage: Hozoell demurred to the plea. It was admitted that there was no fence, as stated, and that there was no town by-law about fences, or cattle running at large. The Justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, for ten dollars and costs.
   Per Curiam.

Every unwarrantable entry on another’s land, is a trespass, whether the land he enclosed or not. (3 Bl. Com. 209. 3 Selwyn’s N. P. 1101.) A person is equally answerable for the trespass of his cattle, as of himself. (3 Bl. Com. 211.) The defendant below was bound to show a right to permit his cattle to go at large ; and it is conceded, that there was no town regulation on the subject. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  