CASE OF IMPEACHMENT OF WASTE. 255 



estates, and before severance, what kind of interests the 

 law allotteth to the owner of inheritance, and what to the 

 particular tenant, for they be competitors in this case. 



First, In general the law doth assign to the lessor those The consent of 

 parts of the soil conjoined, which have obtained the repu- the law with the 

 tation to be durable, and of continuance, and such as being SltinraLUJg 6 

 destroyed are not but by long time renewed ; and to the between inhe- 

 terminors it assigneth such interests as are tender and fee- ritanc e and 

 ble against the force of time, but have an annual or season- Stes^ which&quot; 

 able return or revenue. And herein it consents again with hath relation to 

 the wisdom of the civil law ; for our inheritance and parti- tneir division 

 cular estate is in effect their dommium and usus-fructus ; j &quot;!!Tf!L 



. !! aUQ HSllS-fyUC~ 



for so it was conceived upon the ancient statute of depopu- tus. Owner in 

 lations, 4 Hen. VII. which was penned, &quot; that the owner thestat. 4H. 7. 

 of the land should reedify the houses of husbandry,&quot; that 

 the word owner, which answereth to dominus, was he that 

 had the immediate inheritance ; and so ran the later 

 statutes. Let us see therefore what judgment the law 

 maketh of a timber tree ; and whether the law doth not 

 place it within the lot of him that hath the inheritance as 

 parcel thereof. 



First, It appeareth by the register out of the words of The writ of 

 the writ of waste, that the waste is laid to be ad exha- waste suppps- 

 redationem, which presupposeth h&reditatem : for there timber totefd 

 cannot be a disinherison by the cutting down of the tree, exheredatia- *&quot; 

 except there was an inheritance in the tree, quia privatio nem 

 pr&supponit actum. 



Again it appeareth out of the words of the statute of The statute of 

 Gloucester, well observed, that the tree and the soil are Gloucester, 

 one entire thing, for the words are quod recuperet rem 1 *^^ 

 vastatam ; and yet the books speak, and the very judgment not locum tw 

 in waste is quod recuperet locum vastatum, which shows, tatum - 

 that res and locus are in exposition of law taken indiffer 

 ently ; for the lessor shall not recover only the stem of the 

 tree, but he shall recover the very soil, whereunto the stem 

 continues. And therefore it is notably ruled in 22 H. VI. 22 H. 6. f. 13. 

 f. 13, that if the terminor do first cut down the tree, and 

 then destroy the stem, the lessor shall declare upon two 

 several wastes, and recover treble damages for them severally. 

 But, says the book, he must bring but one writ, for he can 

 recover the place wasted but once. 



And farther proof may be fitly alleged out of Mullin s Mullin s case. 

 case in the commentaries, where it is said, that for timber 

 trees tithes shall not be paid. And the reason of the book 

 is well to be observed ; &quot; for that tithes are to be paid for 



