Patterson

This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged trespass upon the land claimed by the plaintiff to he owned by him and in his possession. • The plaintiff obtained judgment for one dollar and costs,, from which, and an order refusing a new trial, defendant has appealed.

The first contention urged by appellant for the reversal of the judgment and order is: That the burden of proof showing the location of the northwesterly line of a certain highway (No. 520), which was the boundary between the plaintiff’s land and the highway, was thrown upon the plaintiff, and that he failed to make sufficient *130 proof of that fact, and a nonsuit should have been granted, instead of being refused.

Even if it be conceded, without deciding, that the burden of proving this boundary line was thrown upon the plaintiff, we think he has done so, and the nonsuit was ^properly denied.

> The wrongful act complained of was, that the defendant had entered upon the plaintiff’s premises, and had removed and destroyed a part of his fence.

The defendant admitted that, as a road overseer, he had removed the fence, but justified his act on the ground that he was in the performance of an official duty…