case BLANCHLY against fry in trespass for break and enter the plaintiff close  and cut down his corn there shall be no more cost than damage unless the judge  certify under car c that the freehold or title be in question S c salk S c  comb S c skin S c comy trespass quare enclosed space to break in pieces and  for cut and carry away his corn the jury find the defendant guilty of break  the close and cut the corn but not of the carry it away and give ten shilling  damage and now it be move in alrest of judgement the question be whether this  case be within either of the statute which give no more cost than damage the  statute of Elizabeth c enact that if upon any personal action to be bring in  the king court at Westminster not be for any title or interest of land nor  concern the freehold of any land nor for any battery it shall appear to the  judge who try the cause and so signify by he that the debt or damage recover  shall not amount to forty shilling or above that he shall not award for cost  more than the debt or damage recover the statute and car c recite that former  statute and enact that in all action of trespass assault and battery and other  personal action wherein the judge at the trial of the cause shall not certify  upon the back of the record that the modern er p assault and battery be  sufficient prove or that the freehold or title be chief in question if the  damage find be under forty shilling the plaintiff shall have no more cost and  if more shall be award the judgement shall be void and the defendant may have  a action for such vexatious suit in this case the freehold or title of the  land be not in question the action be bring against a gentleman for enter into  the plaintiff ground who be then follow his game in hunt but it be say that in  a like action for break and enter a house and break the plaintiff glass window  and disturb he in his possession the plaintiff have modern judgement and full  cost which be deny by the chief justice to be soGardiners case vent and see  the case of brick v Duffey bull n p and beck v Nichols stram accord a so where  the plaintiff declare for break and enter his close and for plough up his  ground he have full cost but see Smithsend v long case pract c b and Haseltine  v Workham hullock on cost contra b so for enter his boat and cut his rope  hains v Hugh comb Rut see the case of walker v Robinson will stram c and but a  penny damage yet the plaintiff have full cost Adjournatur the court after  several debate incline to be of opinion that if any thing have be carry away  or the defendant have enter claim title then full cost shall have be give but  when it do not appear that the trespass be commit under pretence of title or  that any thing be carry away there we can make a construction contrary to the  express word of the Act of parliament S c comy Rep S c skin but it do not  appear that any judgement be give S c comb it be say S c skin the court agree  that if the defendant have carry the corn away though not off the premise the  plaintiff will have be entitle to full cost but in the case of franklin v  Jolland stram holt chief justice say by asportation in this case be mean a  carry quite away S p pale yellow Eq Rep the to carry away also must be of a  personal charter for when the carry away allege in the declaration be only the  mode in which the injury be do to the land there shall be no more cost than  damage Clegg v molineux dougl see also smith v Charles stram and hullock on  cost to where all the case on this subject be collect d