1£S SALE OF TREES STANDING. 



closes (37 acres), which were laid up for hay in April, May, and 

 June. About 100 trees (oak, ash, and elm) in the hedii^e-rows and 

 the close were cut down, and about twenty persons were employed in 

 felling, loppino;, and barking the trees, and stacking the fagots and 

 bark, and great damage was done to the hedges. There were three 

 sales — two in May and one in June ; and the fagots and bark were 

 not wholly removed till the 28th of September. Evidence was given 

 as to the presumed value of the first and second crop of hay, and it 

 seemed that but for such trespasses they might have yielded £200. 

 The defendant paid £50 into Court, and pleaded no damage ultra; 

 but the jury gave £250 more, and the Court refused to grant a new 

 trial, on the ground of excessive damages. Mmde J. said : " If we 

 were to hold that the jury in estimating the damages for an unlicensed 

 trespass of this sort are to be restrained to exactly the amount sus- 

 tained by the plaintiflP, it would in effect be placing a wrong-doer 

 upon precisely the same footing as one who enters with the owner's 

 permission.'' And s^emhle, in actions for iort, the Court will not inter- 

 fere with the damages found by the jury, unless they appear to be 

 grossly disproportioned to the injury sustained. Holt C.J. also decided 

 "on hearing of counsel several times," in GUnham v. Hanlnj, that if A. 

 demises ground to B. which was pasture, except the trees, and B. puts 

 in his caftJf to feed, irltich harlc the trees, A. has no action for trespass. 



In Knowles v. Mkhet, it was proved that the plaintiff had sold to the 

 defendants some standing trees, which the defendants had afterwards 

 procured to ie felted and taken away. When the writ was served on 

 Micliel, both defendants admitted they had bought the trees jointly 

 for 9 guineas ; but Michel said he would pay no more than half. On 

 this evidence it was objected that the action was not maintainable, 

 the contract being for standing trees, which were part of the reality. 

 To this it was answered that the acknowledgment of the price to be 

 paid for the trees, made after they were felled and applied to the use 

 of the defendants, was sufficient to support the account stated, though 

 there was no other item of account between the parties. The plaintiff 

 was nonsuited ; but the Court of King's Bench held that if there were 

 an acknowledgment by the defendant of a debt due on any account, it 

 was sufficient to enable the plaintiff to recover on an account stated, 

 though not for goods sold and delivered. And see Smith v. Sitjrman, 

 ante, p. 55. In Bragej y. Cole, the defendant agreed to purchase a lot 

 of ash trees for a certain sum, and pay for them according to the 

 conditions of the sale, but afterwards felled and carried away seven of 

 them without making such payment, and refused to pay till the other 

 three had been delivered. It was held that the executors having 



