case Monkton against ashly and other trespass for break his close and bunting  and kill his rabbit may be lie with a continuando S c salk S c holt S c ld ray  trespass for break plaintiff close tread his grass bunting and kill his rabbit  with a continuando of the say trespass as to all the particular to visit a day  et vicious from such a time to such a time after verdict and entire damage  Salkeld move in arrest of judgement that of their own show they bad recover  damage for that for which they ought not to have recover for every entry  bunting and kill be a new trespass yearbook Richard pl a a defendant come  every day upon the plaintiff ground to claim it as his own and it be hold that  he can not be declare against with a continuando yearbook Henry pl abridge by  Fitzherbert trespass pl b nothing proper can be lie in continuance but act of  duration in themselves as nuisance step of light water feed of cattle for  these be permanent thing and have duration without intermission and therefore  may be lie with a continuando and other thing can by no mean be continue as  kill a man horse cut a tree for there the trespass terminate with the very act  and can be repeat so the question will be then of act that may be repeat and  in what case they may be allege with a continuando if the first entry be  suppose to be without a ouster the second entry will be such a new trespass as  can be call a continuando of the first and a release of the first will not  discharge it but if the first act amount to a ouster all subsequent act be  continuances of it see Yelv Brownl c and be say without this distinction the  book be not reconcileable in FitzherbertFitz n b d trespass for break his  close and cut his grass with a continuando must be understand of a actual  ouster Henry pl and buller v hedge lev S c side e which he say be a wonderful  strong case and contrary to the case of brook v BishopEaster term queen  whether f modern Montague for the plaintiff as to the objection either it be  possible or it be not if possible damage may well be for it if impossible the  court will intend the damage to have be give altogether for that which be  possible and not for that which be impossible Salkeld for the defendant the  damage must be intend to have be give for whatever we be express charge with  and all the particular of the trespass be special and express lie in a  continuando indeed if he have declare with a continuando of the trespass  aforesaid general the court will apply the prediction to that which may be  continue but they can do it against the express allegation of the party and a  ouster can be intend in this case holt chief justice can see but that a man  may lie enter into his close and bunting in his warren with a continuando of  the same for several day it be not indeed one continue act that last from one  day to another but it be that the defendant have be bunting there daily c and  that be predict transgression continue and I can agree to the case in  Yelverton but it be in favour of the judgement but to say that if trespass be  lie with a continuando answer the original trespass be of consequence a answer  to the continuando seem strange for the continuando be a trespass continue  which ought not to be unanswered if I say modern er p that on such a day I S  enter into my wood and out so many load of wood and carry they away  continuando quoad the cut it be senseless and so be the case of butler v hedge  which you deny as to the throw of the log and when such trespass that lie not  in continuando be lie with a continuando the judge ought not to stiff any  thing to be give in evidence but the first act Powell justice why may not the  hunt lie in continuance as well as the feed of cattle for as a man can hunt  night and day incessant so can a beast feed nor be the feed yesterday the same  identical continue feed in your sense of unintermission yet trespass quoad  depasturacon be frequent lie with a continuando but cut a tree can or kill so  many rabbit such a day continuando or enter and take away so many load of corn  such a day you can say continuando but the way be to say that such a day the  defendant enter and do so and so and to visit a day et vicious between such a  day and such a day he do c and in these case there ought to be no evidence but  of single instance and the jury can give no damage but as far as their  evidence and so be the case in the yearbook of Henry the seven and Richard the  three which you quote holt chief justice take this difference as to the ouster  if you lie a ouster in your declaration you must lie a reentry or else you can  recover the mesne profit but if you enter you may lie it with a continuando if  it will bear one and recover damage for the entry and mesne profit and at  another day the whole court modern hold it well and say that a trespass for  prostrate a bench with a continuando be hold good so to tread upon et  assumpsit lie in continuance cut certain quantity of wood lie not in  continuance but to lie that well see the yearbook Henry but this here be  relative to no quantity but a continuance of a small kind of trespass if it  have be that he kill three rabbit that day continuando it have be bad so if  for cut five hundred load of corn such a day and they in that case can give no  more in evidence than what be on that day judgement be give for the plaintiff