
    Damron vs. Roach.
    í. Iii an action of trespass the plaintiff may prove special damages if they are strictly the consequence of the trespass committed, or if th<f acídeme by the defendant causing such special damages constitutes a part of one entire transaction, of which the principal trespass was the commencement.
    2. Damron pulled down the fence of Roach, whereby the cattle of Roach escaped and were lost. Held, that the loss of the cattle was strictly the consequence of the trespass and evidence thereof admissible in an action of trespass for throwing down the fence, and permitting the cattle to escape.
    This action of trespass was instituted by Roach against Dam-ron, in the Circuit Court of Knox. The declaration avers, that defendant pulled down the fence of plaintiff, trod down the grass, removed- loads of rock therefrom; and by so pulling down the fence of plaintiff, permitted ten head of cattle to escape, so that they were lost to plaintiff. Plea; not guilty, and issue*
    
      The case was submitted to a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, from which there was an appeal. The case was reversed. See 2 Hump. 425. It was again submitted to a jury at the August term, 1842, Scott, Judge, presiding.
    The plaintiff after having proved the pulling down the fence and hauling the rock away, offered proof of the escape, loss and value of the cattle. This was objected to, the objection overruled, and the evidence submitted to the jury. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of sixty-four dollars. A motion was made for a new trial, which was overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict. The defendant appealed.
    
      Crozier, for plaintiff in error’.
    
      Swan, for defendant in error.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of' the court.

This is an action of trespass brought by Roach against the plaintiff in error for throwing down the plaintiff’s fence. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove that he owned three or four, cattle that were in the field when the fence was thrown down, and that they escaped in consequence thereof; and that said cattle were worth fifty dollars. The defendant objected to the reception of any evidence about the escape of the cattle and their value, but the court overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to go to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this court.

The only question now for the consideration of the court is, whether the Circuit Court erred in., admitting this testimony. Formerly in actions of trespass, the evidence was limited to the proof of such facts in aggravation of damages, as occurred in the perpetration of the trespass; while injuries consequent upon the trespass, could not be enquired into. Bul. Nisiprius, 89,10 Rep. 130, B. Osborne’s ca,se. But the rule now adopted is, that the plaintiff may prove special damages, if they are strictly the consequence of the trespass committed, or if the act done by the defendant, causing such special damages, constitutes a part of one entire transaction, of which the principal trespass was the commencement. 2 Philips Ev. 188, ch. 14, sec. 1.

In this case the escape of the cattle was strictly the consequence of the trespass committed; and although an action on the case might possibly be maintained for the value of the cattle, yet as the parties would be the same, there can be no reason for rejecting this evidence in the present action, and turning the plaintiff over to his action on the case; thus making it necessary to prosecute two actions, when the whole matter may be settled as easily by one. We think there is no error in this record, and affirm the judgment.  