
    Asa Butterfield versus Thomas Pearson
    Of costs in actions of trespass quare clausum, fregit.
    
    This was an action of trespass quare clausum, fregit, and was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for this county on the 26th of August, 1811. It stood continued to the December term following of the then newly-established Circuit Court of Common Pleas, when the plaintiff appealed to the next term of this Court. It was here tried upon the general issue, the defence being grounded on a title set up by the defendant, and the plaintiff obtained a ver diet for five dollars damage.
    The defendant insisted that, under the fourth section of the statute of 1811, c. 33, for establishing Circuit Courts of Common Pleas, he was entitled to recover his costs, the appeal having been made by the plaintiff, and he having recovered less than one hundred dollars. If in this the Court should think him not supported, the defendant argued that, by the statute of 1807, c. 122, § 2, the plaintiff, having recovered less than twenty dollars, was entitled to recoveV, as costs, no more than one quarter part of the sum he had recovered as damage. Neither of these statutes make any saving, as to the question of costs of actions wherein the title to rea’ estate may be concerned.
   On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed full costs to be taxed fot him, as the party prevailing, insisting that the latei [*411 ] statutes referred to by the defendant were not * intended to apply to actions wherein the title to real estate may be concerned, of which trespass quare clausum is one.

Hoare for the plaintiff.

Steams for the defendant.

• The action was continued nisi for advisement, and at the following March term in Suffolk the Court ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff, for the damages found by the verdict, and fb • full costs,

ADDITIONAL NOTE,

[See Elder vs. Bemis, 3 Metc. 599. — F. H.] 
      
      
        Stat. 1784, c. 28, § 9.
     
      
      
        [Dummer vs. Foster, 7 Mass. Rep. 476. — Ed.]
     