
    B. Sanborn versus T. Neilson.
    An action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife, is, in effect, an action on the case, and not guilty within three years is no answer to it.
    This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife. The declaration was in the common form, and the question was, whether the action was trespass, which Is barred by the statute of limitations-, if not commenced within three years next after the cause of action or case, which is barred by the same statute, if not commenced within six years next after the cause of action.
    
      Bell, for the defendant,
    contended, that the action was trespass, to which it was a good bar, that the cause of action did not accrue at any time within three years next before the commencement of the action, and he relied upon the following cases. 2 M. & S. 436, Ditcham v. Bond ; 2 New. Reports, 476, Woodward v. Walton.
    
    
      Bartlett and Sullivan, forthe plaintiff,
    cited 2 Chitty’s PI. 265, note r ; 2 Burr. 753, Cooke v. Sayer; 6 East-387,, Macfadzen v. Olivant.
    
   By the court.

We are of opinion that this action is, in effect, an action on the case, and that a plea that the defendant is not guilty within three years next before the commencement of the action, is not a good bar.  