
    OCTOBER TERM, 1755.
    Purnell vs. Reynolds.
    Appear from Worcester county court. 1$ was an action oi‘ trespass, brought in the county court by the present appellee against the appellant, for breaking and entering the close of the said Reynolds, called Winckfield„ The general issue was pleaded; ,and the jury by their special ■verdict found, that one Christopher Reynolds, the plaintiff's grandfather, was seised of the land in the declaration mentioned, in fee; and so being seised, .after-wards, on the 26th of June 1694, by ¡¡is last will and testament in writing, duly proved, amongst other things therein contained devised the said land unto his son Thomas Reynolds, father of the plaintiff, in fee tail. That Thomas Reynolds, the devisee in the said will, after the death of the said Christopher, entered into the said land, and tvas thereof seised; and so being seised, afterwards on the 6th of August 1712, by his deed, for the consideration ot‘ 3005 pounds of tobacco, conveyed 100 acres, part thereof, to William German, in fee. That afterwards the said William German having entered, on the 17th of August 1715, by his deed conveyed the. said 100 acres to William ¡Bowen, in fee. That afterwards Luke Bowen, pursuant to the said deed, entered on the premises, and was thereof possessed; and being so possessed, by his deed dated the 20th of August 1732, (reciting, “that William Bowen by his last will and testa“rnent, dated the 4th of Mu*ch 1727, did give and bequeath unto his son, Luke Bowen, that part of Winck- ‘ field, before mentioned, to him and his heirs and assigns for ever,”) conveyed the same to John Purnell, father in law of the defendant, in fee, who entered ami was thereof possessed, and still is possessed thereof. That the defendant, and those under whom he claims, have been peaceably possessed of the premises for the «space of forty-two years before the test of the original writ in this cause. The jurv find an act of parliament made, entitled, “An act for limitation of actions, and for avoiding suits in law.” [21 James I. ch. 16.] That Thomas Reynolds the devisee, and father of the plaintiff, died before the bringing of this suit, and iefi issue (lie aforesaid William Reynolds, the pr-sent plaintiff,' his eldest son and heir. That the said William Reynolds, at the time ox the death of his father Thomas Reynolds, was an infant under the age of twenty-one years; and that within ten years after his coining i¡> the age of twenty-one years, he brought tills suit. That within one year before the issuing of the original writ in this cause, the defendant cut ten oak trees on the premises now in question, being some of the trees in the declaration aforesaid mentioned.
    And upon the whole matter above found, the jurors pray advice of the court, &c.
    The County Court gave judgment upon the special verdict for the plaintiff, from which judgment the present appeal was prosecuted.
    The Provincial Court reversed the judgment of the County Court.
    
      jDulany, for the Appellant.
    
      J. Tilghman, for the Appellee.
     