case Anlaby against Welborne trespass for break and enter the plaintiff close  and tread down his bean lie with a continuando from the that of September to  the d of February follow be good continuando trespass for enter and break a  close call RoundGarth c with a transgr pillage quod conculcation et  consumption pillage foot ambulando et depasturat et conculcation c cum averiis  nor prostration tread upon et consumption acervor barley et pisar pillage cum  averiis pillage from the aforesaid twentyfifth day of march to the second day  of a side b hob c leyfield v Tysdall hob   d   light e winch f Trinity term  James godb and the same case be cite in roll g roll SC hob shower KB er p  February next follow nor for enter and break the close call RoundGarth the  twentyninth of September the same year and throw down and destroy a heap of  bean cum averiis transgr pillage quoad prostrate et consumption mass that cum  averiis continuando from the aforesaid twentyninth of September to the second  day of February follow nor for break and enter two other close call RoundEnd  and little close ac herban svan et meadow scilicet ten promontory prati ad  valentian S in enclosed space pillage tunc recently crescent c et all herb  svan et prat c the exception I take be first to the continuando and as to that  some book be that a continuando may be of break a close or a house a but there  be opinion that it can be though a man go shower KB every day yet every such  entry be a new breach of the close and a continuando can couple several and  distinct single act and so be the yearbook b where for break a house it be say  that it can be allege with a continuando no more than take a horse and detain  it ten day and the take can be continue the like of cut down ten tree and yet  it be agree by all that as to cattle a depasture may be continue because of  the common presumption that they may continue there for the time allege I  confess some transient act have be allege with a continuando and yet allow  good as in the yearbook c a continuando in the take away four load of barley  and the case of Litchford v Elliot d trespass for break a close and throw ten  log there lie with a continuando and allow good after verdict and the case of  butler v Hodges e trespass for enter and take and carry away five hundred load  of barley a continuando lie and hold good and the case of bread v brown f  trespass by a man and beast with a continuando hold good the case of Horrel v  Reynolds g in this court about the oyster a continuando be hold good and the  case of Clayton v Gillam h a Essex cause on a motion in arrest of judgement by  Wythens justice a enclosed space to break in pieces and dig up stake with a  continuando hold good but notwithstanding all these case it seem unreasonable  that a trespass shall be lie in tread down grass by a mere foot ambulando with  a continuando for half a year together because the act of man be transient and  every man that life be presume to eat and drink and sleep and to retire to  some mansion house for so do and on the other hand cattle be presume levant  and couchant both day and night and all those case except that of butler v  Hodges be with a continuando transgr pillage general and they be resolve so on  that very reason of this difference which have be a allow difference between a  encounter transgr pillage general and shower KB where the particular be  enumerate for in the former after a verdict the continuando shall be refer to  that of which there may be a continuance and Twisden justice be of opinion  against every one of those judgement and the reason of the case of butler v  Hodges be because the quality of the thing show that it may be of long  continuance for five hundred load of barley can not be carry away by one man  in one day but in our case it be quite otherwise a trespass foot ambulando may  be all in one day to this value beside it be not presumable that a man shall  walk c foot ambulando continuando for half a year and consequent it must be by  new entry which be distinct act and can be couple in trespass a man may lie  several tort and several trespass do at several time and in several place as  Buckmeres case I and therefore it be not necessary to couple they with a  continuando in the case of Hoskins v Jennings king it be resolve that cut and  carry away ten tree can not be with a continuando I confess that in the case  of the earl of Manchester v vale l trangrs foot ambulando a as Fitzherbert n b  bro Abr trespass Brownl b Richard pl and Henry pl c Henry pl abridge by break  title trespass d side SC keb e side SC keb f side g easter term car h easter  term car I   king Trinity term car roll Abr l mich term car sand shower KB er  p be lie with a continuando but no exception be take to it and therefore it be  no authority against we as to that of throw down the stack of bean that can  never be good accord to that difference which be most express agree so in side  that where the particular enumerate in the continuando will not admit of such  a continuance it be error in Rastals entry be a continuando of a foot c but  suppose the continuando well enough as the court there hold it yet here be a  express repugnancy for the defendant be suppose in the first count to be on  the land commit a trespass foot ambulando for a year together and yet in the  second count he make a new entry way et arms into the same close in the  interim which can be for he be there all the while now here damage be give for  both shower KB then as to the three count of enclosed space to break in pieces  et herban svan et meadow videlicet ten promontory prati ad valance c in  enclosed space pillage adtunc et ibidem crescen to feed down to be c this to  eat meadow be sure nought for meadow can signify bay or grass ready to be mow  for that be express under the word herban the sole and proper sense of meadow  be a meadow and the soil be demandable by that name and if a man shall grant  thus herban svan et meadow videlicet ten promontory Prati in enclosed space  vocal little close existen the very land will undoubted pass a ejectment lie  de ten promontory prati as be the book of entry and it be set before pasture  and woodground they have not help it so much as by a England this be not after  a verdict for to the three count we have plead a special plea and they have  demurrer it be true this be not a praecipe or a ejectment where the thing  demand ought certain and proper to be set forth yet in this action they must  express a thing possible and he may as well have say ten promontory terrae and  that will sure have be nought it can be surplusage because a value be set upon  it and if it do signify hay or any thing else beside the soil then he lie no  property in it he do not say suum and therefore nought the close may be his  and the herbage another in the case of brook v brook m and Whiteman v Hawkins  n trespass quare enclosed space to break in pieces et tres tassas England  sheaf of wheat do take then and there be be after a verdict hold nought  because not say suum as quare hay suum to take in hand so in Pursel v Bradley  oh trespass for take good nor equan valor c and do not say svan observe as to  this of property that it be easy answer because the close be allege to be his  and then the grass grow there shall be intend his likewise and the case I have  mention be of thing either several or sever from the soil but on that of to  eat meadow we have judgement for the defendant note as to the objection of the  repugnancy it be overrule be after a verdict quaere ration