case bishop OF London versus web Lord chancellor Parker Eq can ab pl lessee  for year sans waste remainder in fee to a bishop lessee enjoin from dig the  ground for brick one in consideration of marriage settle a house to the use of  himself for life sans waste remainder to his son c the tenant for life shall  not pull down the house lessee for year sans waste can pull down a house or  the tree that be a defence or ornament to the house lessee for year sans waste  may open i bishop bonner in the time of Edward the that be then bishop of  London make a long lease of some land in Ealing in Middlesex in which there be  about twenty year yet to come and the lease be make without impeachment of  waste and the defendant web in who by several mesne assignment the remainder  of this lease be vest article with some brickmaker that they may dig and carry  away the soil of twenty acre six foot deep part of the premise provide they do  not dig above two acre in the year and level those acre before they dig up  other the bishop of London have the inheritance of the premise in right of his  bishopric bring a bill to enjoin the dig of brick in this manor allege that  this be carry away the soil part of the inheritance and will in peer William  consequence turn the pasture field into a pit or pond that it be like the case  of vane v Lord Barnard vern salk where Lord Barnard have upon his marriage  settle Raby castle the family seat upon himself for life without waste  remainder to his first c son of that marriage afterward upon some displeasure  take against his son employ several person to pull down the castle upon which  the court grant a perpetual injunction to stop he and order he to amend and  repair what he have pull down for that he shall not destroy the thing itself  which he have express settle so in this case the defendant in dig all the soil  for brick be actual destroy the field but for the defendant it be say that  frequent experience show that the dig of brick do not destroy the field there  be many field about the town where brick have be dig and those field now use  again for pasture but admit it be waste yet there be a power to commit waste  the lessee may do it as well as open a new I and carry away the mineral  without fill it up again on the other side it be reply that the privilege of  be sans waste will not in equity entitle one to pull down a house or even cut  down tree that be for the ornament of the house Lord chancellor before the  statute of Gloucester waste do lie against Inst lessee for year and the be  without impeachment of waste seem original intend only to mean that the party  shall not be punishable by that statute and not to give a property in the tree  or material of a house pull down by lessee for year sans waste but the  resolution have establish the law to be otherwise I will not shake it much  less carry it further peer William but I take this to be within the reason of  Lord Barnard case where as he be not permit to destroy the castle to the  prejudice of the remainderman so neither shall the lessee in the present case  destroy his field against the bishop who have the reversion in fee to the ruin  of the inheritance of the church let the defendant carry off the brick he have  dig but take a injunction to stop further dig vide Packington case atk Aston v  Aston ves chamberlain v Dummer bro c c bro c c the court will restrain tenant  for life without impeachment of waste from cut timber grow for shelter or  ornament Strathmore v bow bro c c Tamworth v Ferrer Ves William v MNamara Ves  though grow on a common at a distance from the house and though the property  of stranger intervene Downshire v Sandys Ves so timber plant to exclude object  from view day v merry Ves and timber which the settlor consider ornamental  will be so view by the court Downshire peer William er p v Sandys ub sup and  see William v William Ves east burgess v lamb Ves attorneygeneral v Marlboro  mad bishop of winton case cite in Abrahall v Bubb Freem swan and in Skelton v  Skelton swan note