case BOWLSTON against hardy a action for a nuisance will not lie against a man  who have a adjoin warren for damage do by cony post S c more S c   b I roll  Abr cro James burr Bac Abr will action upon the case whereas he be seize of  certain land in fee and the defendant be seize of other land adjoin the  defendant have make two coneyburrows in his land adjoin and have put cony in  they which increase to a great numher and go into the plaintiff land and  destroy his corn and make it barren whereby he lose the profit of his land and  therefore bring the action the defendant feads that the plaintiff land be late  parcel of the manor of d and that queen mary be seize of that manor grant it  to sir William croak Elizabeth peto and grant unto he to have warren in the  say manor and that the plaintiff land be convey unto he and that sir William  peto bargain and sola the manor to the defendant and all warren c thereto  appertain or accept and repute as part of that manor whereby he justify and it  be hereupon demurrer all the justice without argument resolve that the plea be  ill for he have show a warren in gross in the patentee which be not convey  unto he by the bargain and sale for a warren be not parcel nor a member of a  manor but it may be appertain but that be by prescription but whether a action  upon the case lie upon this matter be the only question Anderson the action  lie not for although one have cony in his land he have not any property in  they because they he fierce nature and to have a action against one for damage  do by savage and wile creature wherein he have not any interest and they can  be know whether they come out of his land be unreasonable he who have the  damage t hereby may well kill they and they may he say to he his cony when  they be upon his land a and if other man have other warren adjoin against who  shall the action he bring true against none of they Walmsley accord for the  property of the cony be not in any nor can any man so keep they but that they  will break out of themselves which be reason that none can have they in his  own land unless by grant from the king or by prescription if otherwise he be  punishable in a quo warranto for the queen have the royalty in such thing  whereof none can have any property this cause be not like to the case put on  the other side of erect a limekiln dyehouse or the like for there the  annoyance be by the act of the party who make they but it be not so here for  the cony of themselves go into the plaintiff land and he may take they when  they come upon his land and make profit of they nun may erect a dovehouse but  he who be lord of a manor and if any other private man erect it it be  punishable in the leet as a common nuisance but no action upon the case lie by  any irivate man against he who erect it quod Anderson et Heaumond c ncesserunl  and they say they have see it to he inquire of before the Lord dyer at the  assize as a nuisance and this case be not like to other case which be put of  nuisance for there the tort be by the party himself who do it but here the put  the cony into his own land be not any tort and if there he any wrong it be b  the onies themselves who be fierce naturce wherefore it be not reasonable to  punish any other Heaumond agree with the other justice in omnibus wherefore  afterward by the assent of Owen also it be adjudge for the defendant   b