anderson vers Buckton disapprove daubney v Cooper barn a Cress where the  plaintiff shall have full cost though the damage be under S say law of cost c  Com dig title cost a trespass for the entry of disease cattle into the  plaintiff close per quod the plaintiff cattle be infect not guilty plead and a  verdict for the plaintiff for S it be move to allow the plaintiff his full  cost upon the account of the special damage allege and put in issue and which  will have subsist of itself as a distinct cause of action and the plaintiff  ought n to be punish for join it with the trespass to avoid vexation and cro  car Mod vent cro car ray be cite on the other side it be insist that though  here be matter of aggravation lie yet it be still to be consider as a action  of trespass in which there be a recovery under S and matter allege only by way  of aggravation can entitle the plaintiff to full cost vent salk the chief  justice powys and fortescue justice be for full cost because the consequential  damage be a matter for which the plaintiff may have have a distinct  satisfaction and they liken it to the case of a action of battery per quod  consortium of the wife or slavery of the servant to send away which for that  reason be not within the statute in brown v Gibbons salk bachelor v Biggs  black the true distinction be where the matter allege by way of aggravation  will entitle the party to a distinct satisfaction asportation of tree may be a  ground for a trover but yet may be lie as a aggravation in trespass and the  plaintiff shall have full cost if a man enter and chase and kill my cattle  that be a distinct wrong but yet may be join as matter of aggravation vide  Thompson v berry post suppose I have two close at a great distance and the  same watercourse run through both I may allege the entry into one per quod the  water be prevent from come to the other and there shall be full cost Eyre I  contra because this recovery will not be pleadable to a special action upon  the case for the special injury quod coeteri to say no and the plaintiff have  full cost