CCLXXXII. Hitchcock and Harvy's Case. Mich. 30 & 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench.
HItchcock brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close, and spoyling of his Grass, against Harvey: and the Case was, That A. was seised of the Land in which, &c. and granted to the Plaintiff proficuum of such a Mead called Tentry Mead, post falcationem inde; scil. the Ear-grass. And it was found by Verdict, That Ear-grass is such Grass, which is upon the Land after the mowing, until the Feast of the Annunciation after. It was moved, If such a Grantee might have Trespass, Quare Clausum fregit? And it was the Opinion of the Court,* 1.1 That he could not; but for spoiling the Grass he might
Clench, Iustice, If a Man be Outlawed in an Action personal, The Queen hath the profits of the Land, and lets the same to another, He shall have an Action of Trespass, Quare Clausum fregit; Which Shute granted: And afterwards because the Iury had given Damages entire, as well for the breaking of the Close, as for the spoyling of the Grass, the Plaintiff could not recover the Damages.