
    Denby v. Hairston.
    From Rockingham.
    in a case of trespass to a man’s possession, attended with circumstances of aggravation, such as wantonly exposing a crop to the incur-, -sions of cattle, this Court will not, on the ground of excessive damages, disturb a verdict giving the highest price at which the crop might have been sold;
    
      Trespass.' — The Plaintiff was one of the tenants of Gen. izzard, on a large, tract, of land in the county of Rockingham. The landlord had given instructions to the Plaintiff, as well as to bis other tenants,‘te'sow small grain, stating to them, that should he sell the land, he would reserve for them the privilege of reaping and se-curjng ^[ie crop. The Plaintiff accordingly sowed a quantity of wheat and rye, in the fall of 1817; and in the month of January, 1818, Gen. Izzard contracted to sell the lands occupied by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant, but '(lid not execute a conveyance until August of the same year. At the time of the contract, Izzard informed the Defendant that the Plaintiff was to have his crop of wheat and rye then growing, to which Defendant assented. In the month of March, 1818, the Defendant came to the land with his slaves, and entering on the premises against the will of the Plaintiff, tore down his fences, and exposed his fodder to Ins cattle ploughed up his yard and sowed oats in it; ordered off the Plaintiff, and threatened him with the payment of five dollars rent per day while he remained. The Plaintiff at length consented to leave the place, provided he might be permitted at harvest time, to reap and carry away his crop. This the Defendant refused to permit; claimed the wheat and rye; and afterwards reaped and kept it.
    The cause was tried before Daniel, Judge, in Rocking-ham Superior Court, at its spring sessions, 1818, and in its instructions to the Jury, the Court told them, that upon this evidence the Plaintiff was entitled to recover ; and in assessing damages, they were permitted to give the highest price the wheat and rye were worth, and also damages for the loss of the fodder, and for all other injuries which the Plaintiff had sustained by reason of the trespass of the Defendant. The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff — damages g450.
    A motion was made for a new trial on the ground of excessive damages, but was denied ; and from the judgment rendered, the Defendant appealed-
   Tayxor, Chief-Justice.

Every principle of Law and every dictate of justice, combine to entitle the Plaintiff to the full value of the wheat and rye taken by the Defendant, and to compensation for the other injuries done by him. No ground is perceived in which the verdict is exceptionable, for the Defendant refused permission to the Plaintiff to enter for the purpose of gathering in the crop when it should be ripe, but claimed it as his own, notwithstanding his assent to the Plaintiff’s right when told of it by Izzard $ can it be doubted, therefore, that he is justly responsible for the full value of the crop ? In addition to this, the Defendant was a trespasser upon the Plaintiff’s possession, because when he entered, he had received no title from Izzard.

Haxx, Judge.'

I think there can be no ground for a new trial j the Plaintiff was in possession of the premises under a parol lease from Izzard, prior to any contract entered into between Izzard and the Defendant. "When the Defendant committed the trespass, the legal title to the land had not vested in him ; he had by his contract a right to enter on the land, but the rights of the Plaintiff were not thereby impaired $ he had a right under his lease, to the property he had on the land, as well as to the growing crop. Let the rule for a new-trial be discharged.

Henderson, Judge, concurred.  