delivered the opinion of tiic Court i
The principle has long been settled* that an indictment for a trespass in taking property; caii be supported only in those instances where the act of taking has b'eefi accompanied with force, or where-it is done manuforti. The evidence disclosed to support this indictment, stated that the negro charged to have been taken, was found ori 1 he land of the Defendant Flowers j that be took her from the place where she was employed in the service of her master or mistress, distant about a quarter of a mile from her master’s house j that the mistress having understood it, pursued-the Defendants in order to regain the property, but that at the time of taking, she was absent, and when she came tip, no more force was exercised, than what was necessary to enable the Defendants to re-*227The Defendants then, having without any force or violence to the owners, gained possession of the negro when on their own land* were at .liberty to protect themselves as well as the negro from the attack or interference of any person, who might claim title to said property ; and great as the anxiety of this Court may be, to discourage and discountenance every act of this nature, we cannot conceive that the’ circumstances of this case (though affording good ground for a civil action,) evidence such a forcible taking by the defendants as Constitutes an in. dictablc trespass. Judgment must therefore be entered lor tiie Defendants.