The cattle of the appellee trespassed upon the land of the appellant and damaged crops thereon. Appellant seized the cattle and refused to deliver them -up until the damages were paid. This action was replevin, by appellee, and he succeeded below. It was proved on the trial that the fence around appellant’s land was not a “ lawful fence” within the provision of the first and second sections of an act “ concerning inclosures, trespassing animals, and partition fences ” (1 G-. & H. 342), and, therefore, under the four*438teenth section of the act, the finding and judgment of the-court was correct. This act is intended to supersede the rule of common law on this subject

It was attempted to prove that although, the inelosure was not such as “ good husbandmen generally keep,”' yet it was-such as was kept in that locality, where fences were taken in during the winter to avoid the spring-freshets. Ourstatute, unfortunately, is general, and not, perhaps, adapted to this custom.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.