delivered the following opinion of the Court: —

There are two counts in this declaration; and it has been assumed in argument that one was intended for trover, and the other for trespass. It is argued that the two counts cannot be joined; and that the first count is objectionable, in not alleging property in the plaintiff. It states *305 that he was possessed of the horse, omitting the usual expressions as of his own proper goods and chattels.

In this case it is not indispensably necessary that the Court should determine whether trover or. trespass can be joined ; if it were, we should be strongly inclined to the opinion that they can. 2 Saund. 117 (note c).

The first count is good after verdict. There is an averment, though defective ; and all defective averments are cured by a verdict.

From the second count it appears’ that the plaintiff was possessed of a stray horse, which the defendant claimed as his property, and took him away without the permission of the plaintiff, and against the provisions of the act of Assembly. It is intended as a special statement of the plaintiff’s case, regardless of the general forms in either trover or trespass. The action was commenced in the County Court; and our laws expressly command that nothing shall be lost in the County Courts for want of form. These counts are sufficiently sensible to convey an idea of the case complained of; but if the second count were objectionable, the first is good; and after verdict, by the Act of 1801, ch. 6, the defect is cured.

Let the judgment be affirmed.