
    (*) "Assessors of Plantation No. 9 & 10, in the name of said Plantation" versus Hutchinson & als.
    
    The Act of 1850, c. 196, § 7, authorized Assessors of plantations organized for election purposes, and comprised within the limits of a single township or of half a township, to prosecute, “ in the name of the Plantation,” for trespass upon the public reserved lots.
    
      But, 'in case of a plantation comprised of more than a whole township of territory, that Act gaye no rights of action either to the plantation, or to its Assessor.
    On Report from. Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding.
    Trespass for cutting and taking away standing timber.
    A plantation was organized for election purposes, comprising township No. 10 and a part of township No. 9.
    In the language of the writ, the assessors, [giving their individual names,] brought this action, “ in the name of the plantation,” for a trespass upon a public and reserved lot, situated in the township No. 10.
    The Act of 1852, c. 284, as repealing the section of the Act of 1850, on which this suit is founded, and also the Act of 1853, c. 29, said to operate as a repeal of the Act of 1852, c. 284, may be referred to.
    If in the opinion of the Court the action is not maintainable, a nonsuit is to be entered ; otherwise the case is to stand for trial.
    Peters, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Herbert, for the defendants.
   Tenney, J. —

This suit was instituted for the recovery of damages for an alleged trespass by the defendants, in cutting timber on land reserved for public uses on township No. 10, by authority of statute of 1850, c, 196, § 7, which empowered the assessors of plantations organized for election purposes, comprized within the limits of a single township, or one half township, wherein lands reserved for public uses have been, or may be hereafter located, to prosecute any and all persons for trespassing thereon, in the name of the plantation.”

This provision of the statute does not authorize the assessors of plantations, in the name of the plantations, composed of more than one township each, to prosecute for such trespasses.

The disability of plantations to maintain such actions, in their names, after the repeal of this provision by statute of 1852, c. 284, was so far removed by statute of 1853, c. 29, that the repeal did not operate to defeat any suit or action, which was pending at the time of the passage of the Act of 1852. But actions, which were not sustainable under the Act of 1850, § 7, cannot be maintained under the Act of 1853.

It becomes unnecessary to consider other points presented by the defence. Plaintiffs nonsuit.

Shepley, C. J., and Rice and Hathaway, J. J., concurred.  