
    Hasbrouck against Lown.
    In an action o? cfntliethpiointi?f acted as lhe gent and servant of G. on whose land the hoga were found; and witness, ^"after executing a release to him, to Prove t,iat ,tlie hogs were taken danmgefeaiantr and it was held that G. was a nessPei^rt WIt
    THIS was an action of trespass for taking and impoundingthe plaintiff’s hogs. The cause was tried at XJlster circuit, in 1810, before Mr. Justice Tates.
    
    The defendant, under a notice of justification, proved that he was the agent and servant of Peter M. Groen, on . , whose land the hogs were trespassing, at the time they T J It appeared that the hogs were sold at public auction by the were taken and impounded by the defendant. pound-keeper, after notice given to the plaintiff.
    The defendant offered Peter M. Groen as a witness, ’ (after beinp- released by the defendant from all resnonsi- >... r ° . 1 „ . . 1 . bility lor costs or damages, &c.) m order to prove that the hogs were taken damage feasant on his land.
    The plaintiff’s counsel objected to his admissibility; notwithstanding the release, and the witness was rejected by the judge. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 12 dollars.
    A motion was made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which was submitted to the court, without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The witness in this case was competent, and had he been admitted, his testimony might have made out a complete justification for the defendant. There must be a new trial, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

New trial granted.  