The counsel for the defendant, asked the court below, to instruct the jury that in order to make the defendant guilty, under the indictment, he must have entered in such way, and with such an exhibition of force as was calculated to excite terror and to intimidate; and further, that even if the defendant had abandoned the crop on the two acres, there wras evidence of sufficient force, to render him guilty of forcible trespass.
His Honor refused to give these instructions, but charged the jury, “that if the defendant abandoned the crop on the two acres, there was evidence of sufficient force to warrant a conviction for forcible trespass at common law ;” but that “ if he bad not abandoned the crop, he could not be convicted.”
We think there was error. This Court has repeatedly held that to constitute the offence of forcible trespass, there must be a demonstration of force, as with weapons or multitude of *74people, so as to make a breach of the peace, or directly tend to it, or be calculated to intimidate or put in fear. State v. Ray 10 Ired. 39. State v. Ross, 4 Jones, 315. State v. McCanless, 9 Ired. 377.
It is essential to the offence, that there should be a “ demonstration of force, which is, perhaps, the best definition of the term “ manu forti” and its English equivalent, “with strong hand.” This demonstration of force is to be distinguished from 'bare words, which however violent, cannot of themselves constitute the force necessary to complete the offence. Words accompanied by a display of weapons, or other signs ol force, may constitute the offence, or words accompanied by numbers, may be .sufficient, but in either case, there must be some outward act as distinguished from bare words, which are often only the exhibition of harmless passion, and do not by themselves, constitute a breach of the peace. To complete the of-fence, there must not only be a demonstration of force, but it must be also such as is calculated to intimidate or put in fear. Here, the alleged trespass was committed by one person on the actual possession of two who were both on the spot. Nothing else appearing, the law intends that all men possess ordinary courage and firmness, and that they shall exercise them in the legal protection of their persons and property. The law does not allow its aid to be invoked, by indictment, for rudeness of language, or even slight demonstrations of force, against which ordinary firmness will be a sufficient protection. It is against our material interests and our reason, for one man, by bare words, to drive twenty from the possession of their property, so here, the bare words of one man unaccompanied by any exhibition of force, are not sufficient or calculated to excite terror or to intimidate tv. o men of ordinary courage and firmness, as the law assumes them to be.
As this disposes of the case without reference to the question of abandonment, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further.
Judgment reversed and venire de novo.
Per CueiaM. Venire de novo.