The principal reasons urged in the brief of the defendant against the judgment rendered are (1) that parol evidence was not admissible to prove the agreement that the plaintiff was to have the right to keep two cows in the pasture of the defendant, as there was a written contract of lease; (2) that the plaintiff was a licensee or trespasser, and it was his duty to take the cow out of the pasture when required to do so; (3) that the cow was in the stock-law territory and the defendant had the right to impound her; (4) that there was no demand for possession before the commencement of the action.

The answer to these positions is that there was no ohjection to the parol evidence, and upon it the court has found as a fact that a valid contract subsisted, which gave the plaintiff the right to keep his cow in the pasture.

If so, the plaintiff was not a licensee or trespasser, but was acting as of right, and the defendant could not wrongfully turn out the cow in his own field and then impound her.

These findings also establish a demand and refusal, because under them the defendant had no right to take the cow from the pasture, nor to impose as a condition for a return of the cow that the plaintiff should “keep her up.”

Affirmed.