
    Adams vs. Brereton.
    Appeal from Somerset County Court. This was an action of waste, brought by the appellee against the appellant —Plea no waste, &c. At the trial the plaintiff below offered in evidence a writ of ad quod damnum, under which the defendant claims, obtained by John Jldams, an inquisition thereon returned by the sheriff, and a lease for 80 years, granted in pursuance thereof, for 20 acres of land, particularly described as being condemned for building a water-mill, &e. dated the 12th of April 17(13. The plaintiif then proved, that the land described on the plots in the cause was, at the time of the execution of the writ of ad quod damnum, unimproved, and covered with lim - ber, and other trees, and that the defendant applied the same to other purposes than for the use or support of the mill or houses, or any thing thereunto appertaining; that be grubbed and cleared it, and put it in cultivation by planting corn and sowing wheat. On this evidence the defendant prayed the court to direct the jury, that the plaintiff'ought not to recover, and that he, the defendant, was not guilty of waste, but was justifiable under the writ of ad quod damnum, and the grant made in pursuance of it, in clearing and using the land in the way as proved by the plaintiff'. But the county court, [Done and liobins, A. J.j refused so to direct the jury, but on the contrary directed them that the plaintiff' was entitled to recover; that the defendant was guilty of the waste complained of, aud was not justifiable, under the writ of «ti quod damnum, and the grant made by virtue of the same, in clearing and cultivating the land as aforesaid. The defendant excepted. Verdict and judgment for all that part of the land included within the letters, 1?, &c. wherein the waste and destruction was committed, &c. and .-/M 12 10 0 current money, damages assessed, and costs. The defendant appealed to this court.
    
      In an action of waste the plaintiff offered in evidence a writ of ad qtiod damnum f under which the defendant claimed, an inquisition thereon, and a lease for 80 years, granted in pursuance thereof, for 20 acres of land, particularly described, as being* condemned for building a water mill, dated in 1703. He also pioved, that the laud described on the plots in the cause was, at the time of the execution of thp writ of ad quod dotumruif unimproved and covered with timber and other trees; and that the deiendnnt applied «he same to other purposes than to the use or support of the mill or houses; that he grubbtd and cleaved the land, and put it in cu ti* vatiou by planting corn; — Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; that tlie defendant was not guilty of the waste complained of, but was justifiable, under the writ o £ üd QUOá daitiiluin* anc$ the grant made iu virtue of the same, in cleavingand cultivating the land
    
      The cause was argued at June term 1808,
    before Tu,on-max, Buchanan, Niciioi.sox, and Gaxtt, J. by
    
      J. Bayly, for the Appellant;
    aud by
    
      Martin, IF. B. Martin and Whittington, for the Appellee.
   JUDGMENT XWEX3KD.  