CUTTING WILLOW POLLAEDS. 3 23 



from which fresh 'shoots grew again. It was contended for the 

 defendant, that such cutting down of these trees was not a breach of 

 the implied agreement to cultivate according to good husbandry and in 

 a tenant-like manner, while the plaintiff asserted it was positive waste. 

 Mauh J. reserved the point, and the jury having assessed the value of 

 the willows cut down at £64, gave the defendant leave to move to 

 reduce the damages {£%% 4.s. Cc/. in all) by that sum. The Court of 

 Exchequer decided that it was not waste, Rolfe B. intimating that he 

 considered that cutting down a fir tree would be waste because it 

 would not grow again. And per curiam, " Applying the principles to 

 be extracted from all the authorities to the present case, we have no 

 difficulty in saying that the cutting of these willows does not amount 

 to waste. They are not timber trees, and when cut down they are not, 

 so far as appears by the evidence, destroyed, but grow up again from 

 their stumps, and produce again iheir ordinanj and usual profit by such 

 growth ; therefore neither is the thing demised destroyed, nor is the 

 thing demised changed as to the inheritance, for profit remains, as 

 before, derivable from the reproduction of the wood from the stump of 

 the willow cut down. Nor are the trees in such a situation as to make 

 the cutting of them waste, by reason of what is called collateral respect; 

 as where trees not timber are situated so as to be useful for protection 

 of a house (Co. Litt. 53), and so become, as it were, part of the house ; 

 as in Hob. 219, willows growing within the site of the house. Xor are 

 they willows within view of the manor house, which defend it from the 

 Avind, or in a bank to sustain the bank (12 H. 8, 1); or like white- 

 thorns used for the like purpose, or where they stand in a field depastured, 

 and are used for the shade of the beasts depasturing, and so are intended 

 permanently to remain in that particular form, for the advantage of 

 those to Avhom the inheritance may thereafter come" (14 M. & W. 589). 

 This case was referred to by Willes J., in his summing up in Viscount 

 Hood V. Ivendall, which was an ash-pole case. The defendant held a 

 farm as tenant from year to year, upon a written agreement, by which 

 it was stipulated amongst other things that he should cultivate the 

 farm "in the same way and manner, or as near thereto as circumstances 

 would admit of, as one Henry Parsons (the outgoing tenant) used, and 

 cultivated the same during his occupation thereofj and in all events 

 according to the rules of good husbandry, used and accustomed in the 

 neighbourhood." In an action against the outgoing tenant, alleging 

 for breach amongst others, the cutting and carrying away of ash-poles 

 (such user not being as near to the way and manner in which Parsons 

 used and cultivated the farm as circumstances admitted, and being 

 contrary to the rules of good husbandry used and accustomed in the 



