We concur in the opinion of the court below. By the act of 1879, cb. 92, § 1, exclusive original-jurisdiction is given to justices, of the peace of divers of-fences mentioned in said section, with a power of punishment not exceeding a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days; and among the offences so made cognizable by a justice of the peace are those enumerated in section 116 of chapter 32 of Battle’s Revisal.
Said section 116 enumerates three offences, (1) an unlawful and wilful entry without license after being forbidden, as charged in this bill of indictment} (2) an unlawful and *661wilful entry by a person not being the present owner or bona fide claimant of the premises, and carrying therefrom any wood or other thing without a felonious intent, both of these being misdemeanors; and (8) such entry and carrying away of wood or other thing as .specified in the last offence aforesaid with a felonious intent, which last offence in the words of the statute is to be deemed a larceny and punished as such.
The offence charged against .the defendant, is of the first kind described in section 116, and is a petty misdemeanor. It was therefore within the constitutional power of the legislature to give cognizance of it and such offences, to a justice of the peace, as authorized by the constitution. Art. I, ;§ 13, and Art. IV, § 27.
The ant of the legislature (1879, ch. 92, § 1) undertakes to clothe justices of the peace with jurisdiction of the misdemeanor charged in the bill of indictment in this case. It may be questioned whether it operates to confer on justices of the peace jurisdiction to try .and determine the offence in the 116th section, which is to be deemed a larceny and be punished as such. But the question does not arise on this indictment, and we therefore express no opinion on that point. There is no error. Let this be certified.
Per CuRIam. No error.