blunt versus miller Geo mich in c b trespass for break and enter and break the  plaintiff house and keep the plaintiff out of possession and use of the say  house with a continuando for a month whereby Gilbert the plaintiff be put to  great expense to gain the possession of his house and in the mean time lose  the profit and use of his house verdict for the plaintiff and S d damage and  upon motion for full cost it be deny by the court for this be a plain trespass  quare enclosed space to break in pieces and the per quod be only a aggravation  and in this case the Title of the freehold may have come in question and if so  there shall have be a certificate of the judge which not be in this case the  plaintiff can have no more cost than damage Geo Trin in c b trespass quare  enclosed space to break in pieces quendum bull person ignotce to cause to flee  per quod the plaintiff GoosberryBushes nor five particas England pole in eod  Claus erect officie existent to break in pieces laceravi to strip verdict for  the plaintiff and d damage and on motion for full cost the court hold that  these word in this declaration do not import a actual asportation which must  be a entire carry away and that the take and pull up the pole be not such a  asportation that this be a case in which a certificate may have be make  because the freehold may have come in question and though the trespass begin  by chase the bull yet damage be lie to be do to the freehold and so the Title  of the freehold may there have come in question my brother Denton who give I  this report say that the court doubt of the case in vent which be trespass  quare enclosed space freait for dig up and carry away his tree and it be find  upon evidence that they be root of tree and carry from one part of the ground  to the other the court there doubt whether this be find a asportation for if  the jury only find that which be evidence of a asportation and not a actual  asportation it will not carry cost but they agree in the principal case that  if any thing be carry off from the ground though of never so little value it  will be a to carry away for the word Abcariavit and to carry away in  declaration mean such a carry as amount to a conversion to the defendant use  so where the declaration in a enclosed space to break in pieces for break of  hedge a to carry away be lie by way of aggravation that will not carry cost  but in smith and Batterton raym trespass for break stall in a market they give  full cost because it be a damage to a chattel for the freehold of the market  can never come in question in that action show and it appear by Jones that the  trespass be quoad the good only Gilbert report er p and yet in the case of  barn and Edgar Mod where the trespass be only for impound the court will not  allow full cost because the freehold will not be in question but in the case  of pole and finch lev where the question be touch the right of a way and that  appear by the defendant Gilbert justification though the plaintiff reply that  it be do extra way yet the defendant have full cost but this though it be a  case quote at the bar be not to our present purpose because there the matter  of Title appear on the record itself we come therefore now upon the foundation  and principle before mention to consider the case before we though f doubt  somewhat of it at the first yet I be now clear of opinion with my brother that  there can be no more cost than damage in the present case there be no count  but where the freehold may possible come in question for this count be for  break the barn and lock up the door of the house and barn and detain several  of the plaintiff good mention in the declaration in that house and barn now  here be no substantive and independent count quoad the good and chattel  because it be connect with the break and look up of the barn and in that case  the freehold of the barn may come in question and then lock up the good in the  barn be but mere aggravation in that count if a man will put his good into my  barn without my leave he can it enter and break my barn in order to come at  his own good and therefore upon this count the property of the good may not be  in question but mere the barn that be thus break another and still a strong  reason in my opinion be that it be lie by way of to hold off and not by way of  to carry away for where it be lie by way of to hold off he may detain it as a  distress and contra Vadios Plegios and not by way of asportation and  conversion and then even on the face of the count touch the good and chattel  the freehold may come in question and whether such distress be lawful so that  take this as a aggravation of the break of the barn as indeed it ought to be  the freehold may come in question in this count or if it have be put into a  independent count in the to hold off only and not by way of asportation and  conversion such count will not be good in trespass and therefore no damage can  have be recover for it and therefore there can be no cost de growth and  consequent there can be no cost in that case I think it very proper to be  consider by all practitioner that if there be a trespass upon the freehold and  likewise a count lie de good carry away in order to put in for the cost mere  if there be no evidence of the carry away of the good and convert they to take  a verdict of not guilty upon that count for then where the jury bring in the  damage under S the plaintiff can it have cost upon the other count of the  enclosed space to break in pieces without the certificate of the judge I be  exceed clear that in this case there ought to be only ordinary cost this be  the opinion of the whole court deliver by the Lord chief baron Gilbert